This is another known "fails due to no hardware" case:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894654
those are explicitly excluded from the release criterion, so a
soft failure is appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
We've had this 'exception' for mcelog.service failing in here for
years. Looking into it, it seems to now be fixed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526725
and hasn't happened in our official instances for years (I guess
because they're all Intel boxes). However, we have a similar case
on ppc64le with hcn-init.service failing spuriously:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894654
so I'm just converting it into a workaround for that instead. We
could wire this up to be more sophisticated, with some kind of
array or hash of services that are allowed to fail and more
complex checking code, but let's not bother unless/until it's
necessary.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1600823 shows a
case where systemd throws a service that would usually have been
started out of the boot process *entirely* in order to resolve a
dependency loop. This means the service won't show up as failed,
it will just be inactive when it should be active. This still
should constitute a failure of this test, so let's add a check
for the log message that indicates this situation.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
It's not really a good idea to have the comments that explain
the test_flags in *every* test, because they can go stale and
then we either have to live with them being old or update them
all. Like, now. So let's just take 'em all out. There's always
a reference in the openQA and os-autoinst docs, and those get
updated faster.
More importantly, add the new `ignore_failure` flag to relevant
tests - all the tests that don't have the 'important' or
'fatal' flag at present. Upstream killed the 'important' flag
(making all tests 'important' by default), I got it replaced
with the 'ignore_failure' flag, we now need to explicitly mark
all modules we want the 'ignore_failure' behaviour for.
The old version wasn't working - it was passing even though two
services fail to start in Workstation currently. I'm really not
sure why the old approach wasn't working, but it wasn't, and I
rather hate `script_output` anyway, so here's a different way
of doing it which relies on `eval`ing `assert_script_output`
instead. (I really should send a PR for a non-fatal version of
assert_script_output...)
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
Summary:
pretty simple, just make sure no services failed to start. We
may run into the rngd issue here, not sure, let's land it and
see!
Test Plan:
I guess run the test and see what happens? I haven't
actually tested this myself yet, so, yeah.
Reviewers: garretraziel, jskladan
Reviewed By: garretraziel, jskladan
Subscribers: tflink
Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D710
