Summary:
I started out wanting to fix an issue I noticed today where
graphical upgrade tests were failing because they didn't wait
for the graphical login screen properly; the test was sitting
at the 'full Fedora logo' state of plymouth for a long time,
so the current boot_to_login_screen's wait_still_screen was
triggered by it and the function wound up failing on the
assert_screen, because it was still some time before the real
login screen appeared.
So I tweaked the boot_to_login_screen implementation to work
slightly differently (look for a login screen match, *then* -
if we're dealing with a graphical login - wait_still_screen
to defeat the 'old GPU buffer showing login screen' problem
and assert the login screen again). But while working on it,
I figured we really should consolidate all the various places
that handle the bootloader -> login, we were doing it quite
differently in all sorts of different places. And as part of
that, I converted the base tests to use POSTINSTALL (and thus
go through the shared _wait_login tests) instead of handling
boot themselves. As part of *that*, I tweaked main.pm to not
require all POSTINSTALL tests have the _postinstall suffix on
their names, as it really doesn't make sense, and renamed the
tests.
Test Plan: Run all tests, see if they work.
Reviewers: jskladan, garretraziel
Reviewed By: garretraziel
Subscribers: tflink
Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D1015
When a package is unsigned, KDE will prompt for authentication.
Let's handle this. But count it as a soft fail, because
puiterwijk claims that Rawhide packages will be autosigned
from next week, so this *should* not happen and would indicate
an unsigned package in the repos. We make the KDE 'update
complete' needle area smaller because the wider area includes
some transparency and so will only match if the update applet
is open; this area will match whether it's open (no auth case)
or not open (auth case - the applet seems to disappear after
you provide the password in the auth prompt).
Pushing without review as the test is in production so I want
to make sure it works correctly.
(Also, hey, check out that array match for assert_screen and
that match_has_tag! This is gonna make some things so much
easier...thanks upstream)
Summary:
this more or less covers desktop_error_checks and desktop_
update_notification, though it can't really distinguish
between them easily. All we know is that if both the live and
postinstall versions of this test pass, both of those tests
pass. Any fails will have to be investigated manually.
Test Plan:
Run the tests for both KDE and Workstation, see
what happens. Workstation will fail for F25 and Rawhide at
present, due to SELinux/abrt notifications.
Reviewers: jskladan, garretraziel
Reviewed By: garretraziel
Subscribers: tflink
Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D1004
Summary:
Very similar to the CLI update test, but using the desktops'
update applications. This is based off the CLI update test
branch as it uses the shared functions that branch introduced.
We do not use the fake update packages, as they don't really
do anything useful for these tests; for dnf they can help us
distinguish between issues with the dnf mechanism and issues
with the repos, but we can't really tell that in the graphical
case. So we only use the python3-kickstart package here.
Test Plan:
Run the test on both KDE and GNOME and ensure it
performs as intended. I've been testing it on staging, so you
can see it there.
Reviewers: jskladan, garretraziel
Reviewed By: garretraziel
Subscribers: tflink
Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D1010
