Project

General

Profile

Actions

action #112415

closed

[qa-tools] handle new openSUSE-Leap-Micro-5.2

Added by msmeissn over 1 year ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
New test
Target version:
Start date:
2022-06-14
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Difficulty:

Description

We have just established a new product openSUSE-Leap-Micro-5.2

Please add this to your testplan generator.


Related issues 1 (1 open0 closed)

Related to QA - coordination #110016: [epic][teregen] teregen (maintenance test report template generator) improvementsNew2021-01-14

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by pluskalm over 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from handle new openSUSE-Leap-Micro-5.2 to [qa-tools] handle new openSUSE-Leap-Micro-5.2
Actions #2

Updated by jlausuch over 1 year ago

Do you mean 5.3?
Leap Micro 5.2 was enabled already in openqa.opensuse.org some time ago: https://openqa.opensuse.org/group_overview/94

Actions #4

Updated by pluskalm over 1 year ago

jlausuch wrote:

Do you mean 5.3?
Leap Micro 5.2 was enabled already in openqa.opensuse.org some time ago: https://openqa.opensuse.org/group_overview/94

I would emphasise "testplan generator" part

Actions #5

Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Category set to New test
  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Assignee set to okurz
  • Target version set to Ready

@pluskalm what do you expect we need to do on top of the merge request?

Actions #6

Updated by msmeissn over 1 year ago

This is new, we now export the SLE Micro updates 5.2 for openSUSE Leap Micro 5.2 ... similar to the openSUSE SLE Leap exports.

(Up to now Leap Micro had no update channel, but their releaemgmt wanted it.)

Actions #7

Updated by pluskalm over 1 year ago

okurz wrote:

@pluskalm what do you expect we need to do on top of the merge request?

Probably review of said merge request by Jan or Ondrej would be enough

Actions #8

Updated by pluskalm over 1 year ago

There might be some discussion in future who is responsible for metadata for template generator as its somehow between update validation and tools squad, but its usually such a small think that it might not be worth time spent discussing this :)

Actions #9

Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

pluskalm wrote:

There might be some discussion in future who is responsible for metadata for template generator as its somehow between update validation and tools squad, but its usually such a small think that it might not be worth time spent discussing this :)

Well, that sounds good and feasible :) I think the best approach is if we can make tooling simple and accessible enough so that most of the work can be solved by the requesters directly. Like in this example: Updating the metadata repository should be easier than asking someone else to do it :)

Actions #10

Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Related to action #112268: [teregen] Integrate productdefs generator inside template generator added
Actions #11

Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Related to deleted (action #112268: [teregen] Integrate productdefs generator inside template generator)
Actions #12

Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Related to coordination #110016: [epic][teregen] teregen (maintenance test report template generator) improvements added
Actions #13

Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
  • Assignee changed from okurz to jbaier_cz

https://gitlab.suse.de/qa-maintenance/metadata/-/merge_requests/642 was merged two days ago, nothing heard. I assume this is good so assigning to jbaier_cz who did that review and merge. So for the future it could always work like this that someone outside the tools team prepares the enablement with an optional review of changes.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF