[Fedora QA] #424: Proposed Test Day - KDE 4.11
by fedora-badges
#424: Proposed Test Day - KDE 4.11
----------------------+------------------------
Reporter: mbriza | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 20
Component: Test Day | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
----------------------+------------------------
= phenomenon =
KDE Plasma Workspaces test day for Fedora 20
Proposed date is 7th November, 2013.
= implementation recommendation =
We, as the KDE SIG need to test our three proposed features:
* KDE Plasma Workspaces 4.11
* Plasma-nm
* SDDM as the default KDE display manager instead of KDM
as well as the regular KDE tests ran before every Fedora release
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/424>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
9 years, 7 months
[Fedora QA] #420: Power management testday
by fedora-badges
#420: Power management testday
----------------------+------------------------
Reporter: jskarvad | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 20
Component: Test Day | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
----------------------+------------------------
We would like to run Power management test day. The arrangement will be
similar to our previous Power management test days. We can prepare the
live medium ourselves. We propose 2013-11-14, but any other date should
fit.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/420>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
9 years, 7 months
[Fedora QA] #408: Fedora 20 Translation Test Day
by fedora-badges
#408: Fedora 20 Translation Test Day
----------------------+------------------------
Reporter: aalam | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 20
Component: Test Day | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
----------------------+------------------------
= phenomenon =
Translation Test day for Fedora 20.
Test Date: need to decide. It is before 'Software Translation Freeze'
(2013-10-08).
proposed date: Thursday Sep 26 (2013-09-26)
= implementation recommendation =
- need to review test cases for gnome-3.10
- need to create test for Anaconda
fltg team will help for that.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/408>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
9 years, 7 months
slow mirror workaround?
by Felix Miata
Trying to yum upgrade 19 is stuck on a mirror with no useful throughput. What
kind of workaround for this is available? Nothing jumps at me in the yum man
page. How do I specify to use a particular mirror know to work?
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
9 years, 11 months
Very rough storage validation matrix draft
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks. So, our current set of storage validation tests is just a
grab-bag of stuff we've held over from oldui, added and patched
piecemeal; it's not very coherent or consistent and it doesn't come
close to exercising all of the storage stuff in the installer. We wind
up sort of inventing test plans particularly for custom partitioning as
we go along, with the consequence that we're not sure what we're going
to test, what's really important to test when, etc etc.
I've made a few abortive tries at re-doing the storage tests and
basically given up because it's just a hideous thing to try and cover,
but I thought while I'm still on a momentum roll from F20 and remember
some of the issues that came up during F20 validation, I'd take another
cut at it.
Here's what I came up with:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_storage_matrix
The proposal is to separate out storage testing from the 'installation
testing' matrix as its own matrix, because I think we can get further
with flexible columns, and it's such a big area the installation matrix
gets pretty unwieldy with all the storage tests stuffed into it.
remember this is *extremely* rough. It may be that we don't think my
organizational approach here is right at all and we should tear it up
and start over. But I thought I'd throw it out there for comments. Most
of the tests, obviously, don't exist yet; they'd be fairly trivial to
write, I think the hard part of the problem here is deciding what we
want to test, and how to organize it.
It's an extremely difficult area; there are so many different variables
to storage configuration that it's utterly impractical to try and cover
every possible permutation even assuming the user uses the interface
perfectly. What I've tried to do is come up with something which would
exercise most of the areas we really seem to want to care about, without
being utterly unwieldy.
It is still very large, that's probably the first thing you'd notice
about it. I doubt we could run this on every build. What I think would
be a nice complement is a somewhat improved version of testcase_stats -
http://testdays.qa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/ - which could track
both dimensions of each matrix, so we could try to strategically ensure
every spot on the table is covered at least once per milestone or once
per release, say.
Here's a quick key to the test names for tests I've made up which may
not be self-explanatory, yell if you need explanations of any of the
others:
-----
guided_multi_empty - the 'multi' means multiple disks, this is checking
we correctly autopart to multiple disks.
in the custom tests, 'auto' means 'using the autopart mechanism inside
custom partitioning', the blue text that lets you automatically create a
set of volumes.
existing_retain_home - this is the classic 'install over an existing
Fedora install, retain the /home partition' trick.
existing_precreated - this would be a test for running the installer
with a set of empty volumes that you just wanted to assign mount points
to.
add_to_container - add a new volume to free space within an existing
container.
assign_* tests - these are for specifying that a given partition or
container must be on a particular disk.
help_text - just checks the 'help' screen works.
small_disks - this would be a test where you check anaconda correctly
refuses to install to a disk that's too small.
cancel_encryption - this would be to check what happens if you cancel
out of the 'enter a passphrase' dialog.
shrink_maximum - try to shrink a partition to the largest possible size
(right-hand end of the slider)
shrink_minimum - shrink a partition as small as possible (left-hand end
of the slider)
shrink_no_size_change - set action for a partition to 'shrink' but don't
actually change its size
shrink_unusual_sizes - this would be for the bug we discovered in f20,
test the shrinker handles partitions with 'weird' sizes
shrink_change_action - this is just for changing the 'action' in shrink
a bunch of times and making sure it doesn't explode
multiple_trips - run through Installation Destination more than once
custom_resize_no_size - just clear the 'desired size' field for a
partition and hit 'update settings'
custom_resize_invalid_unit - try entering something like '30 ZX' in the
desired size field
custom_resize_return - change the desired size and then change it back
to the original value
custom_invalid_mount_point - try entering a mount point name that is not
allowed (invalid characters, spaces or something)
custom_invalid_filesystem - try putting a system partition on vfat or
bios boot or swap or something
----
Please, absolutely all comments, suggestions, alternative proposals,
flames etc etc welcome. I'm sure we could improve this proposal or do
better, but I think we have to try and do _something_ better than our
current tests. And I think drawing up a table like this, if nothing
else, illustrates what a hard task this is...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 12 months
Draft terminal application test case
by Adam Williamson
Proposing a new draft release validation test case:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_QA_Testcase_desktop_te...
this is a fairly simple test case that just checks that a terminal
application works in a desktop environment. It would be added to the
desktop matrix along with the browser test case, to cover the lack of a
test case to enforce the terminal part of the Alpha criterion "It must
be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application
from all release-blocking desktop environments."
Comments, improvements, suggestions etc welcome as always! As this is
pretty straightforward I'm planning to put it into production pretty
soon if there's no negative feedback.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
10 years
How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check
by Alexander Todorov
Hi guys,
I've started working to identify packages with missing upstream test suites or
not running the tests in %check. Having a list of hundreds of packages now I
need to prioritize them somehow. This will help in later steps when spec files
need to be fixed or somebody wants to start working with upstream on writing a
test suite.
My idea is to take all bugs against Fedora in the last few years (or releases).
Packages with bigger number of bugs receive higher priority than those with
less. Then based on this prioritize.
How long should the time frame be? I'm thinking 3 to 5 years.
Where low/medium/high priority boundaries are ? (could be 30%, 60%, 90% for
example).
Do you have other ideas how to calculate priority of these items?
Thanks,
Alex
10 years
Re: XFS on Fedora i686, armv7hl
by Chris Murphy
On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen(a)sandeen.net> wrote:
> On 2/26/14, 11:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Fedora is considering XFS as their default file system. They support
>> three primary architectures: x86_64, i686, and armv7hl. Do XFS devs
>> have any reservations about XFS as a default file system on either
>> i686, or arm?
>
> As Dave said, we rely on others to do ARM testing for the most part,
> though I've certainly jumped in and debugged some issues from time
> to time.
>
> It'd be super if Fedora could run the xfstests test suite on arm
> as part of QE. I'd be more than happy to help get that started
> if people are interested.
I don't know that Fedora QA has the resources to do this, but I'll cc the Fedora test@ (QA) arm@ lists. If these are highly automatable tests it might be possible, if they have the hardware. More likely I think it's that we need some ARM community folks to look at splitting up some of this work.
I'm not sure yet what concerns the ARM group might have with XFS either as this hasn't been decided, but the Fedora Server product working group is slightly leaning toward XFS by default. Performance and CPU hit wise on x86_64, XFS seems to match up well with ext4 and maybe even a bit better ratio of throughput/CPUtime for booting workload (systemd is parallel!) so if were the same on ARM XFS could work out slightly better for them.
Chris Murphy
10 years, 1 month