test February 2023

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
23 discussions

reversible dual-boot test station
by Chris Murphy 23 Feb '24

23 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

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

Fedora Linux 38 blocker status summary
by Ben Cotton 07 Apr '23

07 Apr '23

We've branched F38 from Rawhide, so it's time to start everyone's favorite Friday email from Ben! The F38 Beta freeze begins on 21 February. The current target release date is the early target date (2023-03-14). Action summary ==================== Accepted blockers ----------------- 1–3. distribution — {Workstation,Everything,Server} boot x86_64 image exceeds maximum size — ASSIGNED ACTION: Relevant Teams to reduce image size or increase the limit Proposed blockers ----------------- 1. anaconda — installer fails to boot in text mode or rescue mode with systemd 253 — MODIFIED ACTION: Maintainers to build an update that includes upstream PR 2. grub2 — ext4 filessystem support missing — NEW ACTION: Maintainer to diagnose issue NEEDINFO: ausil 3. kwin — kwin_wayland often crashed when used as the sddm Wayland compositor and logging out of Plasma resulting in a black screen — NEW ACTION: Maintainer to diagnose issue 4. mesa — KDE crashes on start with mesa-23.0.0~rc3-3.fc38 — ASSIGNED ACTION: Maintainer to diagnose issue Bug-by-bug detail ============= Accepted blockers ----------------- 1–3. distribution — {Workstation,Everything,Server} boot x86_64 image exceeds maximum size — ASSIGNED https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149246 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151495 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151497 Image sizes exceed the specified limits. The choices are to either shrink the image by removing packages or to riase the limits. Proposed blockers ----------------- 1. anaconda — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165433 — MODIFIED installer fails to boot in text mode or rescue mode with systemd 253 anaconda is writing systemd units to an unexpected area. Upstream PR 4534 contains a candidate fix: https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/4534 2. grub2 — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166412 — NEW ext4 filessystem support missing Between grub2-2.06-76 and grub2-2.06-78, grub2 apparently lost the ability to detect ext4 filesystems. 3. kwin — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168034 — NEW kwin_wayland often crashed when used as the sddm Wayland compositor and logging out of Plasma resulting in a black screen Logging out of Plasma sometimes triggers a kwin crash. This may be limited to running in a virtual machine. 4. mesa — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2164667 — ASSIGNED KDE crashes on start with mesa-23.0.0~rc3-3.fc38 A recent mesa update caused both GNOME and KDE to crash on start. Update FEDORA-2023-40b973fa06 fixed GNOME, but KDE is still seeing this issue. The root cause is still uncertain. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

4 11

Unable to install locally built rpms
by Ralf Corsépius 22 Mar '23

22 Mar '23

Hi, on f38, I am unable to install any locally built package (signed with a local key, I have been using for many years): # rpm -U xpetri-0.4.8-0.fc38.x86_64.rpm error: xpetri-0.4.8-0.fc38.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID a6b9312e: BAD error: xpetri-0.4.8-0.fc38.x86_64.rpm cannot be installed # rpm -qip xpetri-0.4.8-0.fc38.x86_64.rpm error: xpetri-0.4.8-0.fc38.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID a6b9312e: BAD error: xpetri-0.4.8-0.fc38.x86_64.rpm: not an rpm package (or package manifest) # dnf install xpetri-0.4.8-0.fc38.x86_64.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 1:30:47 ago on Tue 28 Feb 2023 06:25:45 AM CET. Dependencies resolved. ... 0.4.8-0.fc38 @commandline ... Installing dependencies: ... Downloading Packages: (1/6): XXX.rpm ... Total 1.2 MB/s | 130 kB 00:00 ... Problem opening package XXX.rpm ... The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: GPG check FAILED Worse, after trying forcefully to install packages using rpm -U --nogpg this happens: # rpm -qa gpg-pubkey-d651ff2e-5dadbbc1 gpg-pubkey-8ff214b4-3afa5d46 gpg-pubkey-a6b9312e-5227e975 gpg-pubkey-94843c65-5dadbc64 error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 5 Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 8ff214b4: BAD Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 6 Header V3 RSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID d651ff2e: BAD Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK gpg-pubkey-5323552a-6112bcdc ... => nogpg is not ignored, as it is supposed to be. What are people supposed to do? Ralf

4 6

Xfce ~ Lost all menu icons in Rawhide and Beta Branch
by Ian Laurie 05 Mar '23

05 Mar '23

In Rawhide (fc39) and the beta branch (fc38), with all updates applied, I'm seeing all menu icons are gone in Xfce... both the system menu and right-click context menus. Seems the Settings Tab in Settings->Appearance now has all options turned off, including "Show images in menus". Updates did this. Ticking this option brings sanity back. Was this really intentional or is it a bug? I think this deviation from traditional defaults is going to cause beginners a lot of grief. The Xfce updates in the total update payload were as follows: xfce4-about-4.18.2-1.fc38.x86_64 xfce4-notifyd-0.8.0-1.fc38.x86_64 xfce4-panel-4.18.2-1.fc38.x86_64 xfce4-power-manager-4.18.1-1.fc38.x86_64 xfce4-session-4.18.1-1.fc38.x86_64 xfce4-settings-4.18.2-1.fc38.x86_64 I'm guessing it was xfce4-settings that did it? If this was intentional I think it was a really bad idea. Ian -- Ian Laurie FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixuser TZ: Australia/Sydney

2 6

Joining Fedora QA
by Mark Rosenbaum 01 Mar '23

01 Mar '23

Hello, I am looking to join Fedora QA and help mostly with triage/bug reproducibility. I am currently a contributor to a multitude of open source projects including the Chromium Project where I hold bug editing permissions(mark.rosenbaum(a)chromium.org). I look forward to working with you, Mark Rosenbaum

2 1

Please vote on blocker tickets!
by Adam Williamson 27 Feb '23

27 Feb '23

Hey folks! Just a reminder to vote on the proposed Beta and Final blocker tickets, which you can find linked from blockerbugs: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/38/beta/buglist https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/38/final/buglist there's one proposed Beta blocker and five proposed Final blockers ATM. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net

3 4

Fedora 38: GDM not recognizing Wayland, only X11
by Scott Beamer 24 Feb '23

24 Feb '23

Greetings, I did a fresh install of Fedora 38 on 19 February from the latest Live images (both Workstation and KDE Spin). Workstation install lists no option for either X11 or Wayland. Default GNOME selection lands you in a GNOME session under X11. I then installed the "KDE Plasma Workspaces" package group. GDM then listed Plasma as an option, but only under X11. I then switched from GDM to SDDM and SDDM shows options for both KDE and GNOME under either X11 or Wayland. If I select GNOME (Wayland) in SDDM and log in, I'm indeed logged into a GNOME session under Wayland. I did the reverse in the KDE Spin. SDDM recognized both Wayland and X11, switching to GDM only gave me X11 as an option under either GNOME or KDE. Has anyone else seen this? Scott

2 5

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute
by Luna Jernberg 22 Feb '23

22 Feb '23

Did this 16th February and it worked then, other then a few packages missing in F38 that was in F37 then mostly Google Fonts and RPM Fusion stuff On 2/22/23, Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 38 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again > sudo dnf module reset '*' > > dnf --releasever=38 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f38 \ > --enablerepo=updates-testing \ > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo > --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ > --assumeno distro-sync > > > This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveals > potential problems. > > You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command. > > > The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the > actual upgrade. > > > In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate > package. > > Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in > Fedora 38. Please check existing reports against > > fedora-obsolete-packages first: > > https://red.ht/2kuBDPu > > and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F38FailsToInstall) > reports: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F38FailsToInstall > > Thank you > > Miroslav >

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test February 2023