I'm pretty sure we got all the bugs this was working around
fixed. Again, if not, we can put this back!
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
The bug never got explicitly addressed, but it's very old and
anaconda has been substantially changed since. The workaround
sometimes triggers erroneously now (because the icon sometimes
goes black while the spoke is still in 'Checking storage
configuration...' state), which is awkward. I can't be 100% sure
the bug doesn't sometimes still happen, but if it does, we'll
notice fairly soon, and we can tweak this and put it back.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
It seems Rawhide auto-signing is working fine now: openQA claims
this needle has 'never' been matched (which really means 'not
for a long time'), and I can't find any test fail in the last
year which looks like it landed on this 'authenticate' screen
but the needle failed to match, or anything like that.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
https://openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org/tests/424393 is a failure
where the 'Download' [updates] button was already visible when
we went to the tab. We already checked whether an 'apply' button
is visible and skipped the 'refresh' click if so, but because
the 'download' button is a new thing, we weren't skipping the
'refresh' click if 'download' was already visible.
So in this case, even though we could already see 'download', we
went ahead and clicked 'refresh'...then *immediately* started
looking for 'download'. It seems that Software did not refresh
and remove the 'Download' button *immediately* when we pressed
'refresh' - it left the 'Download' button visible briefly, and
*in this brief window*, we clicked it. *Then* Software kinda
'noticed' we'd clicked 'Update', and it seems it just sort of
throws away our click on 'Download' at that point and does the
refresh.
So at that point, the test thinks it's clicked 'Download' and
expects to see 'Apply', but actually the 'Download' click got
more or less thrown away, so the test fails, sitting at the
'Download' button.
To solve this, let's just extend the existing check to skip the
'refresh' click if 'download' *or* 'apply' are already visible.
There is a sort of possibility here that we could wind up
downloading and installing some updates that existed and were
noticed *before* we did our python3-kickstart trick, but not
install the python3-kickstart update, and cause the test to fail
because of that, but that doesn't seem to have happened before
when we were seeing the 'update' button, so I think I'm not
going to borrow trouble. If it happens, we'll deal with it I
guess.
The comment talks only about KDE, but clearly it can be the case
that an automatic check makes the button visible on GNOME too,
so let's rewrite the comment too.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
The fix for this bug was sent to all releases now, so we should
not need the workaround any more. Let's kill it.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
That clever-clever 'check the packages from the update were
installed' thing from yesterday breaks on kernel updates, as
they're installonly; after the update, the new version of the
package is installed, but the *old* version is too, and the way
I implemented the check, it treats that as a failure. Let's try
and handle this a somewhat-clever way (if this fails, I'm just
going to grep out lines with 'kernel' in them, as a *dumb* way).
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
This should fix log collection when a French or Japanese test
fails before the test itself would have done this.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
This is breaking the memory_check tests. I just reproduced it
manually and the UI *does* come back to life if you wait some
time; let's see if we can work around the bug this way.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
If an update test fails before reaching advisory_post, we don't
generate the 'what update packages were installed' and 'were
any update packages *not* installed when they should have been'
logs, but these may well be useful for diagnosing the failure -
so let's also do the same stuff there. Only let's not do it all
twice.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
We hit an interesting case in update testing recently:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-115068f60e
An earlier version of that update failed testing. When we dug
into it a bit, we found that the test was failing because an
earlier version of the `pki-server` package was installed than
the version that was in the update; when asked (as part of
FreeIPA deployment) to install it, dnf had noticed that there
were dependency issues with the version of the package from the
update, but it happened to be able to install the version from
the frozen 'stable' repo...so it just went ahead and did that.
In this case, the 'missed' package resulted in a test failure,
but it'd actually be possible for this to happen and the test
to complete; we really ought to notice when this happens, and
treat it as a test failure.
So what this attempts to do is: at the end of all update tests,
check for all installed packages with the same name as a package
from the update, and compare their full NEVR to the one of the
package from the update. If a package with the same name as one
of the update packages is installed, but does not appear to be
the *same NEVR*, we fail, and upload the lists of packages for
manual investigation as to what the heck's going on.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
This is known to not work at present as it's not implemented in
DNF yet; failing on it every day isn't proving much. Once it's
implemented (expected by end Jan) we can turn it back on again.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616167
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
There's really no point having separate error and error_report
needles. Just match on error_report as well as clicking on it.
Also add a new error_report needle for latest Rawhide fonts.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
Sometimes we get a test failing because the SUT isn't connecting
to the network for some reason. In this case we never get any
logs, because `upload_logs` relies on being able to reacht at
least the worker host system via the network.
This attempts to detect when we can't ping the worker host, and
in that case, send some info out over the serial line instead.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
We weren't using the gpt-labelled one, so I took it out of
createhdds; that makes the name of the mbr-labelled one lose
its label tag, so we need to update that name here.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
That whole creaky edifice of conditionals that figured out how
many times to press 'down' was a mess I always hated, and I just
found out that the fix for BLS wasn't complete - I'd assumed in
writing it that systems weren't being migrated to BLS on upgrade
to F30, but actually they are. This makes that design very hard
as we'd have had to find a way to change the number of 'down'
presses part-way through update tests, and all the ways I can
think of to do that would've made this even sillier.
Happily I managed to come up with what looks like a much simpler
approach: just go from the bottom. It seems that in every setup
I can think of to check - all three arches, BLS, no BLS, pre-
install, post-install - the linux line is two lines up from the
bottom of the config stanza (the last line is blank, and the
last line but one is the initramfs line). So we can just press
down 50 times (to make damn sure we're at the bottom) then press
up twice and we should be in the right place, no matter the arch,
the release, or if BLS is in use or not. Whew.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
This bug is breaking all update FreeIPA tests; until the updates
go stable, let's pull them in to update tests so the results
are useful.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
fd files don't work on aarch64, it seems. Drop BIOS even though
it's probably not breaking anything as I don't intend to move
aarch64 to prod until prod is up to new openQA, so no need to
stay compatible.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
In recent os-autoinst the old 'stuff it all in HDDMODEL' doesn't
work and tells you to do it like this. This way does work in the
older os-autoinst currently on prod too, so this should be fine.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
We're about to deploy recent os-autoinst to staging. The UEFI
stuff got rewritten since the version we currently have, and
this is now the recommended way to handle UEFI firmware. The
new vars shouldn't confuse the old code still deployed on prod,
it should just ignore these vars and keep working off the old
'UEFI=1' (which causes it to autodetect the file locations).
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
The one we were using before doesn't seem to exist any more in
Rawhide. /etc/os-release should be fine.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
Now the BLS stuff is enabled in Rawhide, we need to press 'down'
a different number of times to reach the 'linux' line when
editing the boot params (I really, really wish there was a
better way to do this :<). It gets tricky as there are all sorts
of cases here (support_server tests use a CURRREL disk image,
and then there's upgrade tests)...I think this covers things for
now.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
From local experimentation, it still actually produces the
output, even though it prints the message about the order being
wrong and exits 1.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
Weirdly, occasionally some update tests seem to fail because
the 'comm' util we use to produce the list of packages from the
update that were actually tested during the job doesn't think
one of the input files is in alphabetical order, even though we
sort them both when they're produced. I don't know if this is
possibly due to the definition of 'alphabetical order' changing
as part of the update, or what. But we really shouldn't *fail*
the test when this happens, as it's not part of the functional
test, we're just producing convenience data. So, let's handle
the command failing, and if it happens, upload the input files
so we can maybe figure out why it's unhappy...
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
Since a recent sssd update, console login during FreeIPA tests
is taking unusually long. We don't want this to fail all the
tests, so let's extend the timeout, but with a soft fail.
Signed-off-by: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
