qa-devel November 2014

qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
13 discussions

[Fedora QA] #436: SSH access to systems in Beaker lab
by fedora-badges 20 Apr '16

20 Apr '16

#436: SSH access to systems in Beaker lab --------------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: atodorov | Owner: tflink Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+--------------------- = bug description = Currently systems in Beaker lab can be accessed only through bastion.fp.o which is not as convenient as direct SSH into the system. There's also the question whether or not to open the systems directly to the Internet. This needs to be discussed with infra. Filing here so it doesn't get lost. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/436> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

[Fedora QA] #443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests ----------------------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: jreznik | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 21 Component: Blocker/NTH review process | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------------------------+------------------------ = problem = With Dennis (in CC), we discussed how to make release process, with Fedora.next in mind, more transparent and bullet proof. One issue is that releng request can become pretty messy, with full text included and sometimes it leads to errors (omission of packages in compose etc). = enhancement recommendation = One possibility is to visibly separate full text description (with bug numbers, reasons - it's good to have history) and the list of exact nvrs (maybe in code block?), try to avoid "qt bundle" etc. so it's easier to pick up the right list (for blockers, FEs + exceptional tools requests). Another thing is better coordination between requester/releng - to mark when/which list was picked up etc, in similar way how Go/No-Go decision is stated in the ticket. Now I'll let more space to Dennis, maybe example of how the request should look like to make it easy to parse would help. Long term (and preferred) solution would be to have automation in place, Blocker app talking to releng interface, compose database, web dashboard etc... -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/443> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #437: Need to import daily Fedora snapshots into Beaker
by fedora-badges 29 Jan '15

29 Jan '15

#437: Need to import daily Fedora snapshots into Beaker --------------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: atodorov | Owner: tflink Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+--------------------- = bug description = In order to perform any meaningfull testing Beaker needs to import more recent Fedora trees. It could be daily(nightly) snapshots or less often depending on available resources. The tree directory structure needs to be a copy/snapshot of the current state at the time of import. The reason is b/c devel trees utilize one URL but the contents under this URL are updated in a rolling fashion. We need tree URLs where content is not changing in order to produce consistent test results. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/437> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 1

[Fedora QA] #433: blocker proposal form forgets everything after login timeout
by fedora-badges 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

#433: blocker proposal form forgets everything after login timeout --------------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: kvolny | Owner: tflink Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+--------------------- = bug description = I was trying to propose a F20 blocker. I needed to gather information from multiple bugs, so it took me longer to write the justification. After finishing and submitting that, I was presented with a login screen. After logging in again, I was redirected to the proposal form again, but it was completely empty, all the text that took me so long to write was gone. (Okay, I'm a smart guy and I had it in clipboard for such case, but if I had forgotten ... booh.) = bug analysis = Seems the login code doesn't care about other variables in the http request ... = fix recommendation = 1) If there is such a short login timeout, the user should be warned about it (e.g. countdown timer on the page) and the page should allow refresh without submitting the data. 2) Once the login expires, the submitted data should be caried over all the redirects back to the submission form. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/433> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

request for blockerbugs app to specify primary or secondary
by Normand 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Hi there, I used the blockerbugs application at https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug but found that this is restricted to the primary arch releases. Could it be possible to have it improved to support secondary arch releases (ppc64, s390, ...) ? -- Michel Normand

2 1

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora QA Devel Meeting
by Kamil Páral 30 Nov '14

30 Nov '14

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora QA Devel Meeting on 2014-12-01 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00 America/New_York At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Biweekly meeting to go over QA development related topics (Taskotron, BlockerBugs, and other tools). Specific agendas are sent out on [test][1] and [qa-devel][2] lists. **Join us at #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net** (For help with IRC, please read [IRC help page][3]). Meeting logs can be read in the [meetbot archive][4]. [1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce [2]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel [3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_IRC [4]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora-qa-devel/ Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar//meeting/1679/

1 0

Re: Taskotron depcheck question
by Petr Pisar 19 Nov '14

19 Nov '14

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 08:23:38PM -0500, Scott Talbert wrote: > On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Petr Pisar wrote: > > >>>As far as I know alternative-architecture multi-lib packages are > >>>distributed in the same repository as packages for the main > >>>architectue. E.g. glibc-devel.i686 is in x86_64 repository, hence > >>>glibc-devel is mutlilib. glibc-headers.i686 is not in the the x86_64, > >>>hence glibc-headers is not multi-lib. > >> > >>Yeah, but the thing that's bugging me about this now that I'm digging > >>into it more is that miniz-devel.i686 is installable on f20 via dnf and > >>yum. > >> > >I sent a question why miniz is flagged as multi-lib to the > ><rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> and it's waiting on the moderator now. Once > >it propagates, I will take down a pointer here. > > Did you ever find out why miniz was flagged as multi-lib? > No. I sent on November 6th an e-mail to rel-eng mailing list, got a message it waits for a moderator and then no reply. Obviously the Fedora's one-man rel-eng team does not manage the mailing list. However I got similar QA check report <https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/taskmaster//builders/x86_64/builds/1327…> for pcre <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14639/pcre-8.35-7.fc21> which never happened before. I remember from talks with RHEL rel-engs that they mark all '*-devel' packages as multi-lib just based on the package name. And then they have a lot of exception hard-coded into the mashing script. So I guess similar situation is in the Fedora too and that the script is just erroneous in same cases. And that it's not in line the packaging guidelines which explicitly require that any *-devel package must require specific architecture. If the QA check bothers you I would recommend to raise this issue to FESCo. -- Petr

2 2

Taskotron depcheck question
by Scott Talbert 18 Nov '14

18 Nov '14

Hi, Can someone please help me with a depcheck question? See this log file for the package 'miniz': https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/taskmaster//builders/x86_64/builds/6954… As best I as I can tell, the depcheck is failing because there is no 32-bit glibc-headers package in the x86_64 repository. But do we care because miniz 32-bit package won't be in the x86_64 repository either? Thanks, Scott

4 7

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora QA Devel Meeting
by Kamil Páral 17 Nov '14

17 Nov '14

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora QA Devel Meeting on 2014-11-17 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00 America/New_York At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Biweekly meeting to go over QA development related topics (Taskotron, BlockerBugs, and other tools). Specific agendas are sent out on [test][1] and [qa-devel][2] lists. **Join us at #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net** (For help with IRC, please read [IRC help page][3]). Meeting logs can be read in the [meetbot archive][4]. [1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce [2]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel [3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_IRC [4]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora-qa-devel/ Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar//meeting/1679/

2 1

2014-11-04 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Devel Meeting
by Tim Flink 04 Nov '14

04 Nov '14

# Fedora QA Devel Meeting # Date: 2014-11-03 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net It's been a while since we've done this and even though it looks like F21 final testing is going to start right up this week, it'll be good to at least sync up on what's going on even though I suspect that most folks will be back on the validation treadmill. If you have agenda items to add, feel free to respond to this thread or bring them up during open floor. Tim Proposed Agenda =============== Status Updates -------------- - Disposable Clients - Remote Logging - ExecDB - Depcheck Upcoming Potential Stuff ------------------------ - Bodhi2 - Gating builds/updates on automated results - Blockerbugs Enhancements? - Project Ideas * Better Metrics * Upstream Contributions? Iteration 7 ----------- - https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/w/taskotron-7/ Open Floor

1 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

qa-devel November 2014