test March 2011

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

132 participants
380 discussions

[Fedora QA] #149: Mentor Request
by fedora-badges 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

#149: Mentor Request -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: hellork | Owner: Type: proventester request | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- = phenomenon = I am interested in joining the protesters and I'm requesting a mentor. = reason = I have been filing bug reports and working on submitting a couple new projects to Fedora. I have a good working knowledge of Yum update, C, C++, Makefiles, Bash, Python, Java, and RPM, packaging, etc. = recommendation = Sign me up! -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/149> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #145: Request to join ProvenTester
by fedora-badges 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

#145: Request to join ProvenTester -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: dbhole | Owner: Type: proventester request | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- OpenJDK is a widely used package, and has quarterly security updates (at the very least). While we (devel and qe) team test it, there is no way for us to set a +1 karma as a proven-tester. To that end, I would like to apply for proven tester status. In addition to OpenJDK, this will also allow me to test and set the proper Karma for other packages our team owns. I'd be happy to follow and training guidelines laid out by a Proventester Mentor. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/145> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #98: Request for a Mentor
by fedora-badges 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

#98: Request for a Mentor -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: jdulaney | Owner: Type: proventester request | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- I would like to now formally request a Proven Tester Mentor. I have been running Fedora since FC1, generally updating every other release (I skipped 9 and went straight to 10). I have several boxes so as to get different hardware involved. Thanks, John H. Dulaney https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/98> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #60: Devise a better location for critpath.txt
by fedora-badges 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

#60: Devise a better location for critpath.txt -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- critpath.txt lists critical path packages [1]. Currently it is referenced as {{{ http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-<<CURRENT DATE>>/logs/critpath.txt }}} or {{{ http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-<<YESTERDAY DATE>>/logs/critpath.txt }}} depending on which page. Similarly for branched releases. This is not optimal. Very often the url just doesn't work. For example at the time of writing critpath.txt on F13 Alpha Release Criteria page [2] references rawhide-20100407/ directory, where critpath.txt is not available. Nor it is available in rawhide-20100406/ directory. Only in rawhide-20100405/ it is finally available. The very page Critical Path Packages [1] references critpath.txt for Branched release, which is available ATM, but also references critpath.txt for Rawhide, which is again not available. Let's imagine other use case - some automated tool must decide whether package in the critical path. It can't rely on path which are constantly changing and sometimes are not available. critpath.txt is created dynamically, so we probably must have the contents created every day or so. But we should devise such mechanism that the location is stable and the file is always available (if new contents fails to create, the old contents is still available). That will also allow third-party tools to rely on it. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages [[BR]] [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/60> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #170: Request for F15 Power Management test day
by fedora-badges 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

#170: Request for F15 Power Management test day -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: jskarvad | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- We would like to have the Power Management test day on 2011-03-24 (or maybe later). Such event would help us to test the PM functionality (especially suspend / hibernate and tuned profiles) across wide HW configurations. We are able to prepare detailed test instructions and scripts for test semi-automation. Feature page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PowerManagementF15 -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/170> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 11

[Fedora QA] #134: Clarify the ISO to USB tests
by fedora-badges 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

#134: Clarify the ISO to USB tests -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: rhe | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Test Review | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- We've heard many users installing by writing ISO to USB drive and having problems about it. So it's better to have a clear story from anaconda or whoever on what exactly is supported in terms of writing the DVD image to USB, and what isn't. It would be good to clear it up and add some specific install validation tests for it. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/134> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

2 14

[Fedora QA] #79: Add firstboot release criteria
by fedora-badges 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

#79: Add firstboot release criteria ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = See [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=574596 RHBZ#574596 - Smolt does not run at firstboot] = analysis = We don't have a way to know what firstboot modules are expected, we need to document this as release criteria, or write a test to report the issue (for details, see RHBZ #574596). = enhancement recommendation = The release criteria do not include what image:Package-x-generic-16.pngfirstboot modules are intended for Fedora. Often, firstboot some modules are missing or disabled, and we don't notice or know whether this is a blocker. Recommend clarifying the use cases of firstboot in the release criteria. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/79> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: rhe Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- = bug description = Please update the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts test case to clarify that explicit Conflicts: tags are okay. = bug analysis = The relevant release criterion is "No file conflicts or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (CD/DVD) install". The term "file conflicts" here is important. I believe it's intended to mean that only cases where the files in two packages conflict, but there is no explicit Conflicts: tag in the packages. Where the conflict is properly marked in the packages with Conflicts: tags, this should not be considered an infringement of the criterion. = fix recommendation = Change expected results: 2. No file conflicts were detected for packages included in the media kit, unless the conflicting packages also have explicit Conflicts: tags -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/116> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 19

[Fedora QA] #173: Obsoleting the tests for verifying http/nfs/ftp/hard disk install sources
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#173: Obsoleting the tests for verifying http/nfs/ftp/hard disk install sources -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: rhe | Owner: rhe Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- = problem = Now that install.img is included in initrd.img, it can no longer be loaded from somewhere else other than media, therefore Using 'askmethod' is actually the same as 'repo=' which is to direct anaconda using a specific package repo. = analysis = So I propose to obsolete the install source test cases of install sources from http, nfs, ftp, hd, and only test the package repositories of these methods. = enhancement recommendation = The following tests will be kept: - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceBootIso InstallSourceBootIso] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceDvd InstallSourceDvd] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:TestCases/Install_Source_Live_Image Install_Source_Live_Image] The following will be obsoleted: - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceHttp InstallSourceHttp] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceNfs InstallSourceNfs] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceNfsIso InstallSourceNfsIso] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceFtpAnonymous InstallSourceFtpAnonymous] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceFtpNonAnonymous InstallSourceFtpNonAnonymous] - [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceHardDrive InstallSourceHardDrive] Current package repository tests are listed at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Repository Category:Repository] Hard disk and nfs iso repo tests need be added, then they'll cover all package install methods. clumens, how do you think of these? do the remaining tests(install source+repo) cover the common use cases? -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/173> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 12

[Fedora QA] #84: Define install matrix baseline
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#84: Define install matrix baseline ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = * We almost didn't find [http://bugzilla.redhat.com/578633 RHBZ#578633 - Unable to enter passphrase to unlock encrypted disk partitions] * When re-using test results from a previous test run, it's possible to include results for tests that should be re-tested. This would be bad. = analysis = * F-13 Beta candidate#3 didn't include the correct version of ''plymouth'' (see RHBZ #578633). * Since it was Beta#3 and not much was supposed to change from Beta#2, some test results from the previous Beta#2 candidate were carried forward. * Thankfully, QA found the problem before release while running the QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(encrypted)_install test. = enhancement recommendation = * Establish better guidelines about which test results can be carried forward from one candidate to the next (this isn't easy). Or perhaps, establish a subset of tests that all respins must undergo. * Perhaps link to, or document at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/84> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test March 2011