test March 2012

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

86 participants
294 discussions

[Fedora QA] #266: Test Anaconda memory requirements for F17
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#266: Test Anaconda memory requirements for F17 -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Test Review | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- In F15 the hard RAM floor for anaconda was bumped up to 640MB or so because of the increased requirements in that release. F16 decreased the actual RAM usage of anaconda and F17 decreases it again, so we need to do some real-world testing on how little RAM you can get away with for an F17 install, and advise the anaconda team and docs teams to adjust the hard floor and stated system requirements accordingly. It's easy enough to test: just use a VM and change the amount of RAM it has. We'd want to use an image with an anaconda build with the hard floor removed, though. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/266> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #265: Fedora 17 X Test Week
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#265: Fedora 17 X Test Week ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- We should have an X Test Week as usual for F17. I guess I'll run it again this cycle. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/265> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 1

[Fedora QA] #264: Request for F17 Power Management test day
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#264: Request for F17 Power Management test day -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: jskarvad | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- We would like to run the F17 Power Management test day. We expect it to be similar to our previous F16 Power Management test day. We will also try to prepare the Live CD for this event (as for F16). We suggest 2012-04-05 but probalby any date would fit to us. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/264> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

[Fedora QA] #263: Expand Xen test case set
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#263: Expand Xen test case set ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- After checking with the Xen experts on list, it became clear that it would be a good idea to somewhat improve and extend our set of Xen test cases: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-November/104654.html Konrad Wilk summarizes: "It would be nice to expand the tests, and it kind of boils down to: 1) Does it boot 2) Does it work The complexity is that there are three modes of this: HVM (so similar to the KVM test-case), PV (we got that covered now), and the Dom0 (which is mostly - does it boot and you kind of implicitly need to do this before you can do the other two). So I think it makes sense to add the HVM case in the test-matrix - it is pretty simple and similar to the KVM one. The dom0 is a bit more complex, but we already have it outlined in the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 in the Documentation part - so it should be fairly easy to lift it out of there. (adn the stuff about the bridge is not needed anymore)." If someone with knowledge of the area could take this ticket and draft up the set of proposed test cases then mail them to the list for discussion, that would be great. Thanks! -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/263> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

[Fedora QA] #82: Update existing dual-boot tests and add to test plan
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#82: Update existing dual-boot tests and add to test plan ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ 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=590661 RHBZ#590661 - GRUB bootloader should have a few seconds delay on a multi- boot setup] = analysis = Due to RHBZ #590661, the dual-boot experience was not well understood and tested for the final release. It was discovered late and unclear whether this behavior was critical to Fedora success. = enhancement recommendation = Recommend updating existing dual-boot test cases, and create new test as needed, to reflect updated dual-boot release criteria. Also, add tests to the install matrix (depends on ticket#80). The current tests concern dual-booting windows and Mac. I believe Mac is no longer a primary concern. However, we may wish to add a test for dual- booting Ubuntu or even Fedora. See existing dual-boot tests at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Installer_Dual_Boot_Test_Cases -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/82> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 7

[Fedora QA] #259: Review Fedora 17 feature list and co-ordinate with owners of significant features to create test plans
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#259: Review Fedora 17 feature list and co-ordinate with owners of significant features to create test plans ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- We should have someone responsible for reviewing the Fedora 17 feature list and ensuring a good test plan is in place for any significant and potentially disruptive feature. This ticket is for the general process of reviewing the entire feature list; whoever does this may well choose to create separate tickets for the test plans for specific features. If you're interested in working on this, please feel free to assign the ticket to yourself. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/259> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

[Fedora QA] #256: Add EFI data to installation / base results matrices
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#256: Add EFI data to installation / base results matrices -------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: efi retrospective | -------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- It would be nice if we could explicitly include EFI install test results in the installation matrix. Right now we just have the efidisk.img test case, which is kind of outdated: we don't just have a 'special' EFI boot disk any more, EFI support is integrated into all images. I'm not yet sure of the best way to lay this out, but I think we need to capture: * result of a straight-through DVD install booted via EFI * result of a straight-through live CD install booted via EFI * result of a straight-through live-image-written-to-USB-by-livecd-iso-to- disk install booted via EFI * result of a straight-through DVD-image-written-to-USB-by-l-i-t-d install booted via EFI * result of preupgrading an EFI install * result of DVD upgrading an EFI install I think other test cases don't necessarily need to be done both BIOS and EFI, but we probably need at least the above results. One way to do this would be to add an "EFI" column to the installation and base results matrices, and only provide boxes in that column for the test cases that cover the above features. But that's just one idea; there may be a better way. This should be completed in time for F17 Alpha, as EFI boot is considered Alpha-critical for F17. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/256> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 5

[Fedora QA] #260: Cover USB-written images better in installation validation testing
by fedora-badges 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

#260: Cover USB-written images better in installation validation testing ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- It became clear in the Fedora 16 cycle that use of Fedora images (both live and non-live) written to USB sticks is now extensive, and our current installation validation tests don't really test this method very comprehensively. We should extend the installation validation matrix to cover at least boot and installation in the following situations: * Live image written to USB stick using livecd-iso-to-disk * Live image written to USB stick using liveusb-creator * Live image written to USB stick using dd * Non-live image written to USB stick using livecd-iso-to-disk * Non-live image written to USB stick using dd We may want to consider different l-i-t-d parameters also (especially the use or non-use of --format could be significant). We could also cover use of unetbootin as an _informational_ (non-blocking) test, but I'm not super sure about that. Part of this ticket is deciding on the best way to represent this - whether it's by simply creating new test cases and adding them into the matrix, or somehow re-rendering the matrix to cover these cases as 'variants' of existing test cases, or some other method. The changes from this ticket and https://fedorahosted.org/fedora- qa/ticket/256 should be co-ordinated (possibly handled by the same person or group) as they both involve similar questions of how to revise the matrix to cover more situations. This should be completed by Fedora 17 Alpha TC1. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/260> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 9

Criterion proposal - keyboard layouts
by drago01 18 May '12

18 May '12

We currently don't have any explicit criterion that mandates that keyboard layouts choose in the installer should work in the installed system. As a maintainer of one of the packages involved there (system-setup-keyboard) I see such bugs in basically every release, during the development cycle. We should pay more attention to such issues as a system that uses a different keyboard layout as the one physically present can not only be very annoying (we shouldn't release in that state) but can be useless when you have special characters in your password(s). (Can't easily decrypt / login). As seen in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-March/097859.html we do currently have a paragraph that mentions this but is IMO way to vague. So I propose something like: "The keyboard layout selected in the installer must be in use after rebooting the installer (plymouth and X)".

4 10

F17 vs. Pentium 4
by Michael Hennebry 03 May '12

03 May '12

Has F17 been tested to see whether it will install on a Pentium 4? Recently I installed F15 because I could not get the F16 installer to boot. I can get the F13, F14 and F15 installers to boot without media. The F16 installer was a no go, both without media and with a minimal CD. In both cases, I got crashes that required pushing the reset button. I never got to tell them about the iso file. -- Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu "On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class, whom I teach not to run with scissors, that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily

13 91

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
30
Older →

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 March 2012