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>
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>
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.
Summary:
This adds some logging related to the update testing workflow,
so we have some idea what we actually tested. We log precisely
which packages were actually downloaded from the update - this
is important as updates can be edited and when examining results
we'll want to know which packages actually got used. We also
add a new module which runs at the end of postinstall and tries
to figure out which packages from the update were installed in
the course of the test. This still isn't a guarantee the test
actually *tested them* in any way, but it at least means they
got installed successfully and didn't interfere with the test.
Test Plan:
Run the update test workflow, check the logs get
uploaded and seem accurate (sometimes some RPM garbage messages
wind up in the package log, I'm not too worried about that at
present). Run the compose test workflow and check it didn't
break.
Reviewers: jsedlak
Reviewed By: jsedlak
Subscribers: tflink
Differential Revision: https://phab.qa.fedoraproject.org/D1149
