qa-devel February 2020

qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
4 discussions

What is "FuturWarning" while calling fifloader.py ?
by Normand 13 Feb '20

13 Feb '20

Hello Adam, I am starting to use locally the fifloader.py and templates.fif.json Is the "FuturWarning" message something to be worked on ? Is it something you also have in your openQA servers ? === $./fifloader.py -w --filename xx.upstream templates.fif.json /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/jsonschema/_validators.py:200: FutureWarning: Possible nested set at position 7 not re.search(patrn, instance) Input template data is valid Generated template data is valid === -- Michel Normand

2 2

About "Disabling cgroup usage" when starting openQA job
by Normand 13 Feb '20

13 Feb '20

Hello Adam, Do you have lines with "Disabling cgroup usage ..." in the journalctl of workers host ? I noticed that since December 2019 after a dnf distro-sync seems to be related to an upstream change https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/blame/master/lib/OpenQA/Worker/Engine… === journalctl extract: worker[4090]: [info] +++ setup notes +++ worker[4090]: [info] Start time: 2020-02-13 12:38:28 worker[4090]: [info] Running on abanb.tlslab.ibm.com:3 (Linux 5.4.8-200.fc31.ppc64le #1 SMP Mon Jan 6 16:29:22 UTC 2020 ppc64le) worker[4090]: [info] Preparing cgroup to start isotovideo worker[4090]: [warn] Disabling cgroup usage because cgroup creation failed: mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd: Permission denied at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/File.pm line 87. worker[4090]: [info] You can define a custom slice with OPENQA_CGROUP_SLICE or indicating the base mount with MOJO_CGROUP_FS. worker[4090]: [info] Starting isotovideo container === -- Michel Normand

2 1

Re: Git forge requirements discussion
by Kamil Paral 13 Feb '20

13 Feb '20

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:42 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:37 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > > > > Can you put the voting/polls idea in the form of a user story? > > > I think #44 on the list I sent covers that: > As a Fedora team member, I can vote +1/abstain/-1 on issues so that I > can approve or deny proposals. > We would actually need several polls per ticket, so that we can vote on Beta/Final Blocker/FE from a single discussion (and not 4 separate tickets). I'll add that user story.

1 1

Git forge requirements discussion
by Adam Williamson 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

Hey folks! There's a post on the Community Blog: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements and a thread on devel@: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org… explaining that CPE is considering 'the future of a git forge solution which will be run by the CPE team on behalf of the Fedora Community', i.e. possibly ditching Pagure. The named contenders so far are Pagure, Gitlab and Github. The devel@ thread is going to be the usual tire fire, but I think we should write up something on this and send it to the Council (who are supposed to represent the interests of Fedora 'communities' in this process). Obviously we use Pagure for project hosting, issue tracking, and we're also working on the new async blockerbugs process, which relies on integration with Pagure. Can folks (especially those working on the blockerbugs stuff) read through the posts and think about what requirements we have here? I don't think it's going to be useful to have a big argument about the specific contenders here (see devel@ for that!) but it would be good to write up what QA actually needs in a forge. I'll try and gather the feedback and organize it into something to send to Council. Thanks everyone! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

qa-devel February 2020