test January 2011

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

73 participants
190 discussions

[Fedora QA] #98: Request for a Mentor
by fedora-badges 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

#98: Request for a Mentor -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: jdulaney | Owner: Type: proventester request | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- I would like to now formally request a Proven Tester Mentor. I have been running Fedora since FC1, generally updating every other release (I skipped 9 and went straight to 10). I have several boxes so as to get different hardware involved. Thanks, John H. Dulaney https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/98> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #60: Devise a better location for critpath.txt
by fedora-badges 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

#60: Devise a better location for critpath.txt -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- critpath.txt lists critical path packages [1]. Currently it is referenced as {{{ http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-<<CURRENT DATE>>/logs/critpath.txt }}} or {{{ http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-<<YESTERDAY DATE>>/logs/critpath.txt }}} depending on which page. Similarly for branched releases. This is not optimal. Very often the url just doesn't work. For example at the time of writing critpath.txt on F13 Alpha Release Criteria page [2] references rawhide-20100407/ directory, where critpath.txt is not available. Nor it is available in rawhide-20100406/ directory. Only in rawhide-20100405/ it is finally available. The very page Critical Path Packages [1] references critpath.txt for Branched release, which is available ATM, but also references critpath.txt for Rawhide, which is again not available. Let's imagine other use case - some automated tool must decide whether package in the critical path. It can't rely on path which are constantly changing and sometimes are not available. critpath.txt is created dynamically, so we probably must have the contents created every day or so. But we should devise such mechanism that the location is stable and the file is always available (if new contents fails to create, the old contents is still available). That will also allow third-party tools to rely on it. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages [[BR]] [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/60> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #134: Clarify the ISO to USB tests
by fedora-badges 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

#134: Clarify the ISO to USB tests -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: rhe | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Test Review | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- We've heard many users installing by writing ISO to USB drive and having problems about it. So it's better to have a clear story from anaconda or whoever on what exactly is supported in terms of writing the DVD image to USB, and what isn't. It would be good to clear it up and add some specific install validation tests for it. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/134> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

2 14

[Fedora QA] #79: Add firstboot release criteria
by fedora-badges 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

#79: Add firstboot release criteria ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = See [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=574596 RHBZ#574596 - Smolt does not run at firstboot] = analysis = We don't have a way to know what firstboot modules are expected, we need to document this as release criteria, or write a test to report the issue (for details, see RHBZ #574596). = enhancement recommendation = The release criteria do not include what image:Package-x-generic-16.pngfirstboot modules are intended for Fedora. Often, firstboot some modules are missing or disabled, and we don't notice or know whether this is a blocker. Recommend clarifying the use cases of firstboot in the release criteria. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/79> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: rhe Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- = bug description = Please update the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts test case to clarify that explicit Conflicts: tags are okay. = bug analysis = The relevant release criterion is "No file conflicts or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (CD/DVD) install". The term "file conflicts" here is important. I believe it's intended to mean that only cases where the files in two packages conflict, but there is no explicit Conflicts: tag in the packages. Where the conflict is properly marked in the packages with Conflicts: tags, this should not be considered an infringement of the criterion. = fix recommendation = Change expected results: 2. No file conflicts were detected for packages included in the media kit, unless the conflicting packages also have explicit Conflicts: tags -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/116> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 19

[Fedora QA] #84: Define install matrix baseline
by fedora-badges 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

#84: Define install matrix baseline ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = * We almost didn't find [http://bugzilla.redhat.com/578633 RHBZ#578633 - Unable to enter passphrase to unlock encrypted disk partitions] * When re-using test results from a previous test run, it's possible to include results for tests that should be re-tested. This would be bad. = analysis = * F-13 Beta candidate#3 didn't include the correct version of ''plymouth'' (see RHBZ #578633). * Since it was Beta#3 and not much was supposed to change from Beta#2, some test results from the previous Beta#2 candidate were carried forward. * Thankfully, QA found the problem before release while running the QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(encrypted)_install test. = enhancement recommendation = * Establish better guidelines about which test results can be carried forward from one candidate to the next (this isn't easy). Or perhaps, establish a subset of tests that all respins must undergo. * Perhaps link to, or document at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/84> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

[Fedora QA] #86: Add test coverage for text-mode upgrade
by fedora-badges 15 Jun '11

15 Jun '11

#86: Add test coverage for text-mode upgrade ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = See [http://bugzilla.redhat.com/590823 RHBZ#590823 - Text-mode upgrade fails when installing new bootloader -- KeyError: 'bootloader'] = analysis = Some tests in the [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test install test matrix] involve user interface components in both text-mode and graphical-mode (native or VNC). One such bug (RHBZ #590823) involved a problem found only during text-mode upgrades to Fedora 13. The text-mode upgrade screen shows different options thanenhancement recommendation = = enhancement recommendation = I'm hesitant to recommend specific text-mode tests for each user interface element that differs in text-mode and graphical-mode (it would be exhaustive but unachievable). As a catch-all, testing a text-mode install is included in the current matrix. Is there something small that can be done to cover the gap? 1. Perhaps adding a text-mode upgrade test case to the install matrix, or ... 2. Adding variations to the existing upgrade tests [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Update_Bootload… QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Update_Bootloader] and [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Skip_Bootloader QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Skip_Bootloader] to also test text-mode, or ... 3. <insert better idea here> -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/86> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 11

[Fedora QA] #164: Multi-spin DVD review
by fedora-badges 17 May '11

17 May '11

#164: Multi-spin DVD review -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: ke4qqq | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Test Review | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Can QA review the proposed multi-spin DVD and offer it's opinion (pref thumbs up/thumbs down) -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/164> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 8

[Fedora QA] #162: Proposed Test Day - Virtualization
by fedora-badges 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

#162: Proposed Test Day - Virtualization ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: jforbes | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- I will be more than happy to plan/host the test day. Preferred times are 2011-04-14 or 2011-03-31 or any other available day before between the alpha release and then. There are a couple of new features to be tested, but we need coverage across the board for virtualization as there has been a good bit of change. Test plans are in progress. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/162> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #161: Proposed Test Day - Preupgrade test day
by fedora-badges 21 Mar '11

21 Mar '11

#161: Proposed Test Day - Preupgrade test day ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: rhe | Owner: rhe Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Host this test day to focus on: - 1. Preupgrade from last release(14) - 2. Preupgrade from older release(13) - 3. Preupgrade from cli - 4. Other options for preupgrade-cli Will be held on 2011-03-17. Thanks. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/161> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test January 2011