test January 2023

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

17 participants
15 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

Proposed change to rendering of release schedule ics file
by Ben Cotton 02 Feb '23

02 Feb '23

Hi everyone, I want to get feedback before I make a change to how Fedora Linux schedules are generated. As reported in schedule#91[1], the current ics files include very long tasks that aren't particularly useful. I have a plan for how to address that, but first I want to check that it won't impact how people currently use the ics files. If you're using the Fedora Linux schedule ics files, please see the details in the Pagure issue[2]. If this will affect how you or your team use those files, comment in the issue before 13 February. Note that this will not change how the html or json versions are produced. [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/schedule/issue/91 [2] https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/schedule/issue/91#comment-838492 -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

2 2

Boot issue, probably with grub and maybe mdraid
by Bruno Wolff III 31 Jan '23

31 Jan '23

Today one of three machines failed to boot 6.2.0-0.rc4. The machine that failed had not been rebooted in a week and now won't boot any kernel and it appears grub is aborting with a pointer out of range error. All three machines use ext4 and luks, but only the failing machine uses mdraid. I haven't recovered the failing machine yet, but plan to downgrade grub tomorrow and hope that confirms a grub bug by allowing it to boot. If so, I'll file a bug report. I'm wondering if anyone else saw this and/or if they think there might be a different issue I should be looking for?

2 4

[EPEL9] Blender 3.3.3 available
by Luya Tshimbalanga 31 Jan '23

31 Jan '23

After several attempts, Blender is finally available for EPEL9 as 3.3 LTS series. Major differences compared to its Fedora counterpart is the minimal dependencies based on blender_lite.cmake[2] thus light version. As the result, functions like Cycle Rendering will be unavailable but Eevee, Blender internal rendering, is by default. This release is basically a starting point to gradually implement missing dependencies needed for some other options. EPEL co-maintainers are welcome to further improve the support. References ----------------- [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-ac2da7e3bf [2] https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/master/build_files/cmake/c… -- Luya Tshimbalanga Fedora Design Team Fedora Design Suite maintainer

1 0

What to do after a system crash during dnf upgrade
by George R Goffe 29 Jan '23

29 Jan '23

Hi, Running dnf upgrade during periods of system instability seems to leave the system in an unknown state. How does one recover from this situation? Best regards, George...

4 3

Delayed openQA test execution
by Adam Williamson 26 Jan '23

26 Jan '23

Hey folks! Wanted to send a note out for any maintainers who may be waiting on openQA test results for critical path updates etc. Tests are currently taking much longer than usual to be completed because there's a large backlog. The Rawhide mass rebuild, plus the three critical bugs (python-ptyprocess, systemd, and mesa) that I posted about yesterday, caused 2-3 days' worth of Rawhide update tests to fail. After finally sorting out those problems enough that the tests now pass, I rescheduled that whole backlog, which turned out to be over 2000 tests. The system is working its way through the backlog but it'll take a while (I expect it should be clear by end of day today or so, it depends a bit on how many updates are created in the mean time), and until that gets done, it may take much longer for the tests for any given update to be completed after the update is created. I do apologize for this; with hindsight it might've been better to try and hack up a way to reduce the priority on the backlogged Rawhide update tests so tests for stable release updates ran first, but I didn't think of that yesterday. If there are any urgent security or critical bug fix updates for stable releases which are waiting on testing and really need it run ASAP, let me know and I can manually bump the priority of those tests so they run sooner. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Re: Some heads-ups for Rawhide users: python3-ptyprocess and systemd issues
by Adam Williamson 26 Jan '23

26 Jan '23

On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 12:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Adam Williamson: > > > 6 (__libc_message.cold+0x5) [0x7fbae3c2560f] > > Jan 25 13:38:47 fedora /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1040]: (EE) 6: /lib64/libc.so.6 (malloc_printerr+0x15) [0x7fbae3c96a05] > > Jan 25 13:38:47 fedora /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1040]: (EE) 7: /lib64/libc.so.6 (_int_free+0x9e5) [0x7fbae3c98de5] > > Jan 25 13:38:47 fedora /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1040]: (EE) 8: /lib64/libc.so.6 (__libc_free+0x7e) [0x7fbae3c9b42e] > > Jan 25 13:38:47 fedora /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1040]: (EE) 9: /usr/lib64/dri/zink_dri.so (__driDriverGetExtensions_zink+0x9e70) [0x7fbad82b8180] > > Jan 25 13:38:47 fedora /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1040]: (EE) 10: /lib64/libgbm.so.1 (gbm_format_get_name+0xe81) [0x7fbae3229361] > > Jan 25 13:38:47 fedora /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1040]: (EE) 11: /lib64/libgbm.so.1 (gbm_format_get_name+0x1018) [0x7fbae32294f8] > > Jan 25 13:38:47 fedora /usr/libexec/gdm-x-session[1040]: (EE) 12: /lib64/libgbm.so.1 (gbm_format_get_name+0x121a) [0x7fbae32296fa] > > I saw this during the latest glibc update, but given that the update > wasn't tested in isolation, I waived it through because the update > addresses the known sprintf issue. > > I'm not aware of anything in glibc this might have caused this. The > crashes related to -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 look different (they try to crash > before causing heap corruption!), and it's not the sprintf assertion > failure in __printf_buffer_as_file_commit, either. > No, it's definitely mesa that causes it - I verified that with manual local testing, updating only mesa causes the bug to start happening, downgrading it makes it go away. This is now being tracked/investigated as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2164667 . -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Some heads-ups for Rawhide users: python3-ptyprocess and systemd issues
by Adam Williamson 25 Jan '23

25 Jan '23

Hey folks! Just wanted to send out a heads-up for Rawhide users about some issues that have shown up in openQA testing. First, you may have found that trying to update to today's Rawhide fails like this: Error: Transaction test error: file /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ptyprocess-0.7.0-py3.11.egg-info from install of python3-ptyprocess-0.7.0-2.fc38.noarch conflicts with file from package python3-ptyprocess-0.7.0-1.fc38.noarch That's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2164207 , we figured out the problem (thanks to Panu for getting to the root cause of it) and it is fixed in python-ptyprocess-0.7.0-3.fc38 , which should be in the next Rawhide compose. If you really can't wait you can update directly to that version from https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2138649 , but you'd better watch out for issue #2... The second issue is that systems that update to systemd-253~rc1-1.fc38 seem to get stuck on boot. With Plymouth enabled you just see the splash screen. With it disabled (or by pressing esc) it seems to be stuck at "Stopped initrd-switch-root.service - Switch Root.". I'm still looking into this one, but it's happened to a lot of openQA tests and I was able to confirm it first try in a local VM, by installing from the 20230123.n.0 compose then updating systemd and rebooting. Fresh installs with the newer systemd seem to be OK, at least most openQA tests for the new compose passed - it seems to be only updating an existing install that has the problem, at least so far. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

1 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test January 2023