test November 2022

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

18 participants
23 discussions

reversible dual-boot test station
by Chris Murphy 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

Hi, I mentioned this in a QA meeting, and have given it enough testing that I think it's broadly usable. If desired it can be copied out of my user account and put up somewhere where QA folks will see it and can modify it as issues or improvements are discovered. What is it? The idea is to produce a system that can confidently be used for baremetal testing, without risking the primary operating system. While VM's are a great way to test, it's also a really idealized environment that tends to not expose an assortment of bugs that affect particular hardware. But then quite a lot of folks reasonably don't want to upgrade their daily use hardware early on, because they don't want to always have to debug things, or have to figure out how to undo the upgrade if it really goes badly. Therefore, I present a dual-boot setup offering: * no re-partitioning; * no installation step, instead system upgrade is used; * reversibility, or undoability, i.e. with just a few steps you can delete the "test OS". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Chrismurphy/Draft/dualboot_teststation -- Chris Murphy

2 5

Re: Thoughts welcome: interface between automated test gating and the "critical path"
by Adam Williamson 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 08:37 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > Now, because I glued openQA to the critpath because it was handy, there > > are two sets of consequences to a package being in critical path: > > > > 1. Tighter Bodhi requirements > > 2. openQA tests are run, and results gate the update (except Rawhide) > > > > So, one of the implicit questions here is, is it OK to keep twinning > > these two sets of consequences, or should we split them up? Splitting > > them up kinda implies answer 2) from my original mail: "Keep the > > current "critical path" concept but define a broader group > > of "gated packages" somewhere". Because we would then need some new > > concept that isn't "critical path". As I said, that's more *work* - > > it'd require us to write new code in several places[0]. Even if we > > decide it'd be nice to do this, is it nice *enough* to be worth doing > > that work? > > I'd still vote for keeping a single critpath list and using it as > "the list of packages that require extra care and testing". > > As you describe, the original meaning of critpath has shifted, but > it's because the way we do updates and QA has also shifted. Doing > gating tests for a package seems much more useful than just keeping > it longer in 'updates-testing' in hope that somebody discovers an > important regresion in the second week. Well, there's a caveat there - openQA doesn't test everything. On the whole we cover quite a lot with the set of tests that gets run on updates, but there's certainly lots of potential for there to be important bugs it misses, that a human tester might catch. So I think there is still a case for the higher karma requirements too. > > So yeah, I don't think it makes sense to do the extra work to split > the concepts. Also because we have way too many concepts and processes > in Fedora already. On the whole, though, I agree with you. I just don't trust my own opinion because it's obviously biased by what's convenient for me. :D > > If we don't think it's worth doing that work, then we're kinda stuck > > with openQA glomming onto the critpath definition to decide which > > updates to test and gate, because I don't have any other current viable > > choices for that, really. And we'd have to figure out a critpath > > definition that's as viable as possible for both purposes. > > > > > > BTW, one other thought I've had in relation to all this is that we > > could enhance the current critpath definition somewhat. Right now, it's > > built out of package groups in comps which are kinda topic-separated: > > there's a critpath-kde, a critpath-gnome, a critpath-server, and so on. > > But the generated critical path package list is a monolith: it doesn't > > distinguish between a package that's on the GNOME critpath and a > > package that's on the KDE critpath, you just get a big list of all > > critpath packages. It might be nice if we actually did distinguish > > between those - the critpath definition could keep track of which > > critpath topic(s) a package is included in, and Bodhi could display > > that information in the web UI and provide it via the API. That way > > manual testers could get a bit more info on why a package is critpath > > and what areas to test, and openQA could potentially target its test > > runs to conserve resources a bit, though this might require a bit more > > coding work on the gating stuff now I think about it. > > That sounds useful. We only need a volunteer to figure out the details > and do the work ;) I actually did a huge rewrite of the thing that generates the critpath data this week, and it probably wouldn't be tooooo much work, honestly. The most annoying bit would be the Bodhi frontend stuff, but that's because I'm bad at frontend dev in general. :P But yeah, this is definitely off in sky-castle land. I'll add it to my ever-growing list of sky-castle projects to do when I get a couple of years of spare time... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

3 4

Plan / proposal: enable openQA update testing and potentially gating on Rawhide updates
by Adam Williamson 09 Jun '23

09 Jun '23

Hi folks! We've had openQA testing of updates for stable and branched releases, and gating based on those tests, enabled for a while now. I believe this is going quite well, and I think we addressed the issues reported when we first enabled gating - Bodhi's gating status updates work more smoothly now, and openQA respects Bodhi's "re-run tests" button so failed tests can be re-triggered. A few weeks ago, I enabled testing of Rawhide updates in the openQA lab/stg instance. This was to see how smoothly the tests run, how often we run into unexpected failures or problems, and whether the hardware resources we have are sufficient for the extra load. So far this has been going more smoothly than I anticipated, if anything. The workers seem to keep up with the test load, even though one out of three worker systems for the stg instance is currently out of commission (we're using it to investigate a bug). We do get occasional failures which seem to be related to Rawhide kernel slowness (e.g. operations timing out that usually don't otherwise time out), but on the whole, the level of false failures is (I would say) acceptably low, enough that my current regime of checking the test results daily and restarting failed ones that don't seem to indicate a real bug should be sufficient. So, I'd like to propose that we enable Rawhide update testing on the production openQA instance also. This would cause results to appear on the Automated Tests tab in Bodhi, but they would be only informational (and unless the update was gated by a CI test, or somehow otherwise configured not to be pushed automatically, updates would continue to be pushed 'stable' almost immediately on creation, regardless of the openQA results). More significantly, I'd also propose that we turn on gating on openQA results for Rawhide updates. This would mean Rawhide updates would be held from going 'stable' (and included in the next compose) until the gating openQA tests had run and passed. We may want to do this a bit after turning on the tests; perhaps Fedora 37 branch point would be a natural time to do it. Currently this would usually mean a wait from update submission to 'stable push' (which really means that the build goes into the buildroot, and will go into the next Rawhide compose when it happens) of somewhere between 45 minutes and a couple of hours. It would also mean that if Rawhide updates for inter-dependent packages are not correctly grouped, the dependent update(s) will fail testing and be gated until the update they depend on has passed testing and been pushed. The tests for the dependent update(s) would then need to be re- run, either by someone hitting the button in Bodhi or an openQA admin noticing and restarting them, before the dependent update(s) could be pushed. In the worst case, if updated packages A and B both need the other to work correctly but the updates are submitted separately, both updates may fail tests and be blocked. This could only be resolved by waiving the failures, or replacing the separate updates with an update containing both packages. All of those considerations are already true for stable and branched releases, but people are probably more used to grouping updates for stable and branched than doing it for Rawhide, and the typical flow of going from a build to an update provides more opportunity to create grouped updates for branched/stable. For Rawhide the easiest way to do it if you need to do it is to do the builds in a side tag and use Bodhi's ability to create updates from a side tag. As with branched/stable, only critical path updates would have the tests run and be gated on the results. Non-critpath updates would be unaffected. (There's a small allowlist of non-critpath packages for which the tests are also run, but they are not currently gated on the results). I think doing this could really help us keep Rawhide solid and avoid introducing major compose-breaking bugs, at minimal cost. But it's a significant change and I wanted to see what folks think. In particular, if you find the existing gating of updates for stable/branched releases to cause problems in any way, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

3 4

Unexpected system freeze
by George R Goffe 29 Nov '22

29 Nov '22

Howdy, System is FC38: Current kernel is: kernel-6.1.0-0.rc5.20221118git84368d882b96.43.fc38.x86_64 I just experienced an unexpected system freeze about an hour or so ago. /var/log/messages contains oom killer messages. Are "we" still having oom problems? Is there a docs location that can provide oom killer information? Is there a system or process dump hiding somewhere on this system? Best regards, George...

2 1

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Prioritized bugs and issues
by Ben Cotton 29 Nov '22

29 Nov '22

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 5:00 AM <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: > Prioritized bugs and issues on 2022-11-30 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00 America/Indiana/Indianapolis > At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.libera.chat > > More information available at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/prioritized_bugs/ We will evaluate the following proposed Prioritized Bugs: * Recent kernels cause problem with microphone LED on Thinkpad X1 Carbon gen. 9 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134824 * Do Not Disturb enabled when screens are not mirrored - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143358 In addition, we'll follow up on the accepted bugs: * It is possible to go through the initial setup without creating a root and without adding a user to the wheel group - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2015490 -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

1 0

Re: [Test-Announce] 2022-11-28 @ **16:00** UTC - Fedora QA Meeting
by Luna Jernberg 28 Nov '22

28 Nov '22

Will attend the meeting today On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 2:48 AM Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting > # Date: 2022-11-28 > # Time: **16:00** UTC > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) > # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat > > Greetings testers! > > It's time for a first meeting since Fedora 37 was released! Let's get > together to check in on 37 and 38. > > Note that clocks have now gone back everywhere that does daylight > savings time, so the meeting will be at 16:00 UTC (I'm almost sure I > got this right this time). If your clocks changed a while back, the > meeting will be at the same local time as always. If your clocks didn't > change, the meeting will be an hour later in your local time than it > was during the summer. > > If anyone has any other items for the agenda, please reply to this > email and suggest them! Thanks. > > Note, this may possibly be the last meeting of the year - we may cancel > the meetings in December as a lot of RHers will be on vacation and it's > a pretty slow time of year. > > == Proposed Agenda Topics == > > 1. Previous meeting follow-up > 2. Fedora 37 review, Fedora 38 check-in > 3. Test Day / community event status > 4. Open floor > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA > IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha > https://www.happyassassin.net > > _______________________________________________ > test-announce mailing list -- test-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedorapro… > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

1 0

info to verify checksum files not correct
by AV 22 Nov '22

22 Nov '22

Following info on https://getfedora.org/en/security/ gpgv --keyring ./fedora.gpg *-CHECKSUM gpgv: not a detached signature I think a little correction is warranted. AV

4 6

Re: [Test-Announce] Re: Proposal: make meetings officially every other week
by Luna Jernberg 19 Nov '22

19 Nov '22

Have updated my Google Calendar accordingly On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 3:24 AM Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-10-28 at 17:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hey folks! > > > > The more attentive among you may have noticed I've had a kinda > > unofficial policy of holding the QA meetings every other week for a > > while. We just don't seem to have as much to discuss/debate as maybe we > > did five or six years ago. I choose to see this as a positive sign that > > everything is working smoothly, but maybe others disagree? I dunno. > > > > Anyway, it seems a bit silly that we still notionally schedule a > > meeting every week but I almost always cancel half of them. So I'm > > proposing we make it official that we only meet every *other* week. > > This would save sending out cancellation notices and manually canceling > > the event in the calendar every other week. > > > > What do folks think? Makes sense? Or would you rather we really do meet > > every week and find more things to argue about? Or do you hate meetings > > and wish we only did one a year? :D > > Hey again folks. So the response to this was positive, and I've decided > to go ahead and implement it. I unfortunately had to delete and re- > create the calendar.fedoraproject.org entry for the meeting, as > changing its recurrence to every 14 days didn't seem to work properly. > So if you had any kind of subscription for that entry, you'll have to > set it up for the new one - sorry. > > I counted the meeting on November 14 as the first meeting in the new > every-other-week era, so the next meeting will be November 28. I will > not send a cancellation mail for November 21st, but I'm sending this > mail to test-announce to make sure folks are aware of the new era :) > > I'll also update the wiki page to explain things. > > Thanks folks! > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA > IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha > https://www.happyassassin.net > > _______________________________________________ > test-announce mailing list -- test-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedorapro… > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

1 0

Re: [Test-Announce] Re: Proposal: make meetings officially every other week
by Philip Rhoades 18 Nov '22

18 Nov '22

Adam, On 2022-11-19 13:23, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2022-10-28 at 17:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hey folks! >> >> The more attentive among you may have noticed I've had a kinda >> unofficial policy of holding the QA meetings every other week for a >> while. We just don't seem to have as much to discuss/debate as maybe >> we >> did five or six years ago. I choose to see this as a positive sign >> that >> everything is working smoothly, but maybe others disagree? I dunno. >> >> Anyway, it seems a bit silly that we still notionally schedule a >> meeting every week but I almost always cancel half of them. So I'm >> proposing we make it official that we only meet every *other* week. >> This would save sending out cancellation notices and manually >> canceling >> the event in the calendar every other week. >> >> What do folks think? Makes sense? Or would you rather we really do >> meet >> every week and find more things to argue about? Or do you hate >> meetings >> and wish we only did one a year? :D > > Hey again folks. So the response to this was positive, and I've decided > to go ahead and implement it. I unfortunately had to delete and re- > create the calendar.fedoraproject.org Can someone change the format of that home page from tiled groups to a table with headings that can be clicked on to sort columns? Why does anyone use tiles? - they are SO much harder to scan quickly . . Phil. -- Philip Rhoades PO Box 896 Cowra NSW 2794 Australia E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au

1 0

Fedora 37 on todays LUP
by Luna Jernberg 16 Nov '22

16 Nov '22

https://linuxunplugged.com/484 Fedora 37 review on todays Linux Unplugged

5 5

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test November 2022