action #20052
closed
[qe-core][functional][userspace] Unused QA_WEB_REPO, QA_HEAD_REPO, SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO variables added to sle media -> should only be added where necessary
Added by okurz about 7 years ago.
Updated 2 months ago.
Category:
Enhancement to existing tests
@yosun, @thehejik, @rpalethorpe: Can you comment on this? Can we remove the variables from the medium? Should we move them to corresponding test suites or within os-autoinst-distri-opensuse?
We use only QA_HEAD_REPO and QA_WEB_REPO inside qa_run.pm, and it still in use. It's design for convenience for other product use it. It's OK to change it write those url inside testscript. But I don't see more advantage to remove those parameters than keep them.
I have no experience for SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO.
yosun wrote:
But I don't see more advantage to remove those parameters than keep them.
We have nearly 1k jobs for each build and all jobs have these variables, only a few use them. So my feeling is that there would be less confusion about the purpose if these variables are only where they are used.
I wonder about the version of these repositories. Why do we use QA_HEAD_REPO stating 12-SP2 for testing 12-SP3 and the same for slenkins?
- Subject changed from Unused QA_WEB_REPO, QA_HEAD_REPO, SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO variables added to sle media -> should only be added where necessary to [functional][u][userspace]Unused QA_WEB_REPO, QA_HEAD_REPO, SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO variables added to sle media -> should only be added where necessary
- Target version set to Milestone 17
- Subject changed from [functional][u][userspace]Unused QA_WEB_REPO, QA_HEAD_REPO, SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO variables added to sle media -> should only be added where necessary to [functional][u][userspace] Unused QA_WEB_REPO, QA_HEAD_REPO, SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO variables added to sle media -> should only be added where necessary
- Target version changed from Milestone 17 to Milestone 21+
- Target version changed from Milestone 21+ to Milestone 21+
- Target version changed from Milestone 21+ to Milestone 25+
- Target version changed from Milestone 25+ to Milestone 30+
- Target version changed from Milestone 30+ to Milestone 30
needs to be discussed offline
- Description updated (diff)
- Status changed from New to Workable
- Assignee set to szarate
- Estimated time set to 42.00 h
- Subject changed from [functional][u][userspace] Unused QA_WEB_REPO, QA_HEAD_REPO, SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO variables added to sle media -> should only be added where necessary to [qe-core][functional][userspace] Unused QA_WEB_REPO, QA_HEAD_REPO, SLENKINS_TESTSUITES_REPO variables added to sle media -> should only be added where necessary
- Assignee deleted (
szarate)
This ticket was set to Normal priority but was not updated within the SLO period. Please consider picking up this ticket or just set the ticket to the next lower priority.
This ticket was set to Normal priority but was not updated within the SLO period. Please consider picking up this ticket or just set the ticket to the next lower priority.
- Tags set to qecore-cleanup
- Status changed from Workable to Rejected
7 years old ticket. Please create new one if issue still current
- Status changed from Rejected to Workable
- Target version deleted (
Milestone 30)
Why should I need to create an exact copy of the ticket? I just checked https://openqa.suse.de/admin/products and the same issue is still present and still valid. I appreciate your cleanup attempt but don't just reject tickets because they are 7 years old.
- Priority changed from Normal to Low
@okurz but is it really an issue if no one complained about it since 7 years? No escalation or request?
I might have used the wrong words while closing, let me try to rephrase: "No one looked at this in 7 years, no one tried to escalate it. Likely will never work on it, no reason to keep this in the backlog forever"
I would rather have a ticket closed instead of keeping it for another 20 years, but I see others like to user "Low" prio as recycle bin, we can do it as well.
By the way, you are welcome to contribute if you feel like it's something relevant!
mgrifalconi wrote in #note-19:
@okurz but is it really an issue if no one complained about it since 7 years? No escalation or request?
Implicitly people complain about this and related issues, e.g. when people say that openQA tests are complicated, hard to get into, have too many settings, have to many moving parts, etc.
- Status changed from Workable to Rejected
- Assignee set to szarate
This is no longer needed; evaluation of test settings will happen later, if at all.
Also available in: Atom
PDF