Project

General

Profile

action #120444

coordination #121876: [epic] Handle openQA review failures in Yam squad

Revisit wrong settings for HA migrations

Added by jgwang 3 months ago. Updated 18 days ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
Target version:
Start date:
2022-11-15
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

Motivation

We should try to stick to the current configuration of the HA jobs, they should look the same, in the future we might figure out why some particular things are done in a way, but for now we can focus on matching the existing job behaviors. Things that we noticed:

Acceptance criteria

AC1: Fix wrong configuration for HA migrations

Additional information

See #120106 for the mapping


Related issues

Related to qe-yam - action #120708: Update the default target of HA autoyast profile to make it flexibleNew2022-11-18

History

#1 Updated by JERiveraMoya 3 months ago

  • Tags set to qe-yast-refinement
  • Subject changed from License agreement not shown for some addons to Revisit wrong settings for HA migrations
  • Description updated (diff)
  • Priority changed from Normal to Low
  • Target version set to Current

#2 Updated by coolgw 3 months ago

i think ha standalone case use qt or text mode both ok.

#3 Updated by coolgw 3 months ago

Original ticket is use to clarify scenario: when you add ha or we addon, the license agreement should happen or not? If should show, then which situation will show?

Base current openqa code logic of addon_products_sle , it will show if you do fullcd without any register, so we need first understand the product requirement, then we trigger next step, either submit bug or change code.

#4 Updated by JERiveraMoya 3 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#5 Updated by JERiveraMoya 3 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#6 Updated by JERiveraMoya about 2 months ago

  • Tags deleted (qe-yam-refinement)
  • Status changed from New to Workable

#7 Updated by JERiveraMoya about 2 months ago

  • Related to action #120708: Update the default target of HA autoyast profile to make it flexible added

#8 Updated by JERiveraMoya about 2 months ago

coolgw wrote:

Original ticket is use to clarify scenario: when you add ha or we addon, the license agreement should happen or not? If should show, then which situation will show?

Base current openqa code logic of addon_products_sle , it will show if you do fullcd without any register, so we need first understand the product requirement, then we trigger next step, either submit bug or change code.

we do some iterative process that when we have wrong configuration will give us that test error. Fixing addons setting should suffice. Behavior should be the same than the image we found there originally.

#9 Updated by JERiveraMoya about 2 months ago

  • Parent task set to #121876

#10 Updated by tinawang123 about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from Workable to In Progress

#11 Updated by tinawang123 about 1 month ago

  • Assignee set to tinawang123

#14 Updated by tinawang123 21 days ago

For setting with base,serverapp, at register_system module, it will check base and server application module then output 'Module base is already selected and installed by default' information. Related case: https://openqa.suse.de/tests/10220977#step/register_system/18

For setting without base,serverapp, at register_system module, it will not check base and server application module only choose the other modules like ha. related case: https://openqa.suse.de/tests/10312583#step/register_system/19 But the selected modules' list are same.

#15 Updated by JERiveraMoya 18 days ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved

Also available in: Atom PDF