Project

General

Profile

Actions

action #125930

closed

[qem][qe-core]test fails in consoletest_finish, failed to unlock the desktop [may be caused by screen_saver?]

Added by rfan1 almost 2 years ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Bugs in existing tests
Start date:
2023-03-14
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Difficulty:

Description

Observation

openQA test in scenario sle-15-SP3-Server-DVD-Updates-x86_64-qam-allpatterns@64bit fails in
consoletest_finish

Test suite description

Testsuite maintained at https://gitlab.suse.de/qa-maintenance/qam-openqa-yml. Default system config with all patterns enabled.
Due changes in autoyast profile size of HDD incerased to 40GB

Reproducible

Fails since (at least) Build 20230313-1

Expected result

Last good: 20230312-1 (or more recent)

Further details

Always latest result in this scenario: latest


Files

Screenshot_2023-03-27_11-05-35.png (7.23 KB) Screenshot_2023-03-27_11-05-35.png X running twice dzedro, 2023-03-27 09:09

Related issues 1 (0 open1 closed)

Has duplicate openQA Tests (public) - action #126284: [qe-core] test fails in consoletest_finishRejected2023-03-21

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by rfan1 almost 2 years ago

As discussed with Zhaocong from desktop team, we can check this PR to disable screen_saver:
https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/16565

Then this sporadic issue can be fixed hopefully.

Actions #2

Updated by rfan1 almost 2 years ago

  • Subject changed from [qem][qe-core]test fails in consoletest_finish to [qem][qe-core]test fails in consoletest_finish, failed to unlock the desktop [may be caused by screen_saver?]
Actions #3

Updated by ph03nix almost 2 years ago

https://openqa.suse.de/tests/10688785 is passing. Looks like a sporadic issue?

Actions #4

Updated by rfan1 almost 2 years ago

ph03nix wrote:

https://openqa.suse.de/tests/10688785 is passing. Looks like a sporadic issue?

Yes, but it has failed several times in past few builds.

If it is caused by screen_saver, worth to fix it :)

Actions #5

Updated by zluo almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Workable
  • Assignee set to zluo

take over and check

Actions #6

Updated by dzedro almost 2 years ago

Just disabling screensaver should be not the solution, there should be test also for that.
AFAIR it was left like this to have "real use case", this setup showed also issues with X.

Actions #7

Updated by rfan1 almost 2 years ago

dzedro wrote:

Just disabling screensaver should be not the solution, there should be test also for that.
AFAIR it was left like this to have "real use case", this setup showed also issues with X.

Thanks, add @zcjia into the loop!
Do you have any suggestion?

Actions #8

Updated by zcjia almost 2 years ago

Hi @rfan1, in your PR, you doesn't change the YAML used by "qam-allpatterns" test, why?

Sorry, I was looking at different PR.

Have you tried if disabling screensaver can help this test?

Actions #9

Updated by rfan1 almost 2 years ago

zcjia wrote:

Hi @rfan1, in your PR, you doesn't change the YAML used by "qam-allpatterns" test, why?

Sorry, I was looking at different PR.

Have you tried if disabling screensaver can help this test?

Not yet! and as @dzedro mentioned, it should not be a good solution to disabling the screensaver.

Actions #10

Updated by zcjia almost 2 years ago

dzedro wrote:

Just disabling screensaver should be not the solution, there should be test also for that.
AFAIR it was left like this to have "real use case", this setup showed also issues with X.

Hi dzedro, I'm not fully understanding what you mean here.

The problem I see in the failed test is that: we can't make screensaver go away (the system did not freeze, and no problem with X11 server), we use send_key to the screensaver, but it seems that the keyboard focus is out of way.

Actions #11

Updated by ph03nix almost 2 years ago

  • Has duplicate action #126284: [qe-core] test fails in consoletest_finish added
Actions #12

Updated by dzedro almost 2 years ago

zcjia wrote:

dzedro wrote:

Just disabling screensaver should be not the solution, there should be test also for that.
AFAIR it was left like this to have "real use case", this setup showed also issues with X.

Hi dzedro, I'm not fully understanding what you mean here.

The problem I see in the failed test is that: we can't make screensaver go away (the system did not freeze, and no problem with X11 server), we use send_key to the screensaver, but it seems that the keyboard focus is out of way.

IMO "we can't make screensaver go away" because the test is broken, if customer could not make screensaver go away then it's bug.
We can turn off screensaver, but there should be test for it.

Actions #13

Updated by zcjia almost 2 years ago

dzedro wrote:

IMO "we can't make screensaver go away" because the test is broken, if customer could not make screensaver go away then it's bug.
We can turn off screensaver, but there should be test for it.

First, a customer (or anyone) can easily make screensaver go away.

It is just difficult to implement it reliably in openQA. A user can make screensaver go away by hitting a key, or moving mouse, or use mouse to drag the screensaver.

Second, you are right, screensaver should be tested somewhere, but it should not block many other tests.

So I think disabling screensaver in the context of this bug is the right choice.

Actions #14

Updated by dzedro over 1 year ago

I'm hitting this issue in my VR for other change always, it's bug. https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209781
X is running on tty2 and tty7 and because of that pressing key will not unlock the screen.
I created workaround for the bug. https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/16717

Actions #15

Updated by dzedro over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Workable to Feedback
  • Assignee changed from zluo to dzedro

I would resolve the issue. But maybe for the future could be considered to create screensaver specific test and don't block multiple tests with screensaver.

Actions #16

Updated by mgrifalconi over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

Would like to resolve due to inactivity. In case you think we should have a follow-up, let's create a new ticket!

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF