test April 2023

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

28 participants
29 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

new criterion proposal: toolbox functionality
by Sumantro Mukherjee 26 Jun '23

26 Jun '23

Related to a recently proposed blocker [0], I propose a new release criterion which would cover that case. There is a push from the Dekstop team to have toolbox as a default app in the installer iso as well. Here it is: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Toolbox aka Toolbx should be usable. Toolbox should be able to list, create and provide the desired containerized environment to the user without root privileges. Toolbox images should be generally functional. Footnote - "What does this cover?": Toolbox's general functionality as covered by this test cases https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_toolbox ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I think this criterion could target F39 Beta Release Criteria or Basic Release Criteria [2]. Please tell me your thoughts, thanks! [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183038 [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria -- //sumantro Fedora QE TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED

6 25

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

kernel-headers package is missing in fedora-updates
by Nils Smeds 25 Apr '23

25 Apr '23

This makes kernel updates break for any user who needs the headers (for example to build 3rd party kernel modules [NVidia])

2 2

Introducing Steam + video game testing criteria
by Neal Gompa 25 Apr '23

25 Apr '23

Hey all, I would like for us to have some testing criteria around gaming and Steam so that we can ensure we're offering a working gaming experience in Fedora Linux releases. This is motivated by the issue we had in the F37 cycle where glibc broke popular multiplayer games[1]. I was reminded of this when I launched Steam today on F38 and zenity crashed[2]. I would like to propose the following criterion for Steam itself as a Beta Blocker bug: "Steam MUST be able to be installed and have its basic functionality work with no visible errors. Basic functionality for Steam includes: logging into a Steam account and installing a Windows/Proton game and a Linux/SteamOS native game." For gaming itself, I would like to propose the following criterion as a Final Blocker bug: "Steam games identified as Deck Verified by ProtonDB.com (see https://www.protondb.com/explore?selectedFilters=whitelisted) MUST launch and let the user play the game. This criterion is not intended to judge performance, merely accessibility. At least one Windows/Proton game and one Linux/SteamOS native game MUST be tested in this manner." Now, the tricky issue here is how to wordsmith the check for anti-cheat systems. I don't want to specifically call out just EAC, but I also don't know of a good mix of games with different anti-cheats. The important thing is to catch regressions and see if it's something we can resolve. In the EAC case from F37, it was easy for us to deal with, but if it's genuinely broken in a way we can't deal with it on the Fedora side, I don't know what we're supposed to do, so I'm wary of doing some kind of blocker criterion for that. I'd also like this to be imposed on both release-blocking desktops: GNOME and KDE Plasma. Any ideas welcome and appreciated! [1]: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2873 [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2177287 -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

5 10

fwupd problem F38 WS
by AV 25 Apr '23

25 Apr '23

Before I start investigating/reporting a "bug" I would like to ask if there is some sort of problem with the "shim" in Fedora 38 WS. I get the following result using fwupdmgr: Perform operation? [Y|n]: y Decompressing… [ ] Blocked executable in the ESP, ensure grub and shim are up to date: /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/shimx64-fedora.efi Authenticode checksum [0ce02100f67c7ef85f4eed368f02bf7092380a3c23ca91fd7f19430d94b00c19] is present in dbx AV

2 2

coreutils in Rawhide ~ behavior change to the -v option on cp?
by Ian Laurie 25 Apr '23

25 Apr '23

It looks to me like there has been a recent change to the verbose reporting option on the cp command. Previously (and still in Fedora 38) the -v option will report on files actually copied, but ignores files not copied (for example when -v is used with -u). However in Rawhide the -v option now reports on files skipped when used with -u, which has made a big mess of many of my bash scripts. Anyone know if there is some trick to reverting traditional behavior? Ian -- Ian Laurie FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser TZ: Australia/Sydney

3 2

Fwd: Broken gcc 13.0.1-0.15.fc39 (missing <amxcomplexintrin.h>)
by Luna Jernberg 23 Apr '23

23 Apr '23

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mattia Verga via devel <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:00:46 +0000 Subject: Re: Broken gcc 13.0.1-0.15.fc39 (missing <amxcomplexintrin.h>) To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)proton.me> Il 23/04/23 11:17, Tomasz Kłoczko ha scritto: > Hi, > > Looks like with latest gcc 31.0.1-0.15.fc39 many packages builds are failing with: > > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/13/include/immintrin.h:135:10: fatal error: amxcomplexintrin.h: No such file or directory > 135 | #include <amxcomplexintrin.h> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109600 > > kloczek > -- > Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH Today I was able to builda package that was previously failed, gcc-13.0.1-0.16.fc39 has fixed the problem in Rawhide. Mattia

1 0

Fwd: Broken gcc 13.0.1-0.15.fc39 (missing <amxcomplexintrin.h>)
by Luna Jernberg 23 Apr '23

23 Apr '23

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tomasz(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:17:04 +0100 Subject: Broken gcc 13.0.1-0.15.fc39 (missing <amxcomplexintrin.h>) To: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> Hi, Looks like with latest gcc 31.0.1-0.15.fc39 many packages builds are failing with: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/13/include/immintrin.h:135:10: fatal error: amxcomplexintrin.h: No such file or directory 135 | #include <amxcomplexintrin.h> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109600 kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH <http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH>*

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test April 2023