Project

General

Profile

action #40475

[functional][y][saga] Establish YaST team split

Added by riafarov almost 2 years ago. Updated 3 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Enhancement to existing tests
Target version:
Start date:
2018-10-09
Due date:
2019-11-19
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
(Total: 53.00 h)
Difficulty:
Duration: 291

Description

Motivation

We agreed that we should focus on YaST more as it's developed internally and close feedback loop.
Basic idea is to do QA with backlog which is synced with development. It includes integration testing, as we currently do, but more focused on YaST and being a precondition for other tests if installation doesn't work.
It will allow us to test features during the development and provide feedback, so it's cheaper and easier to change things. Additionally, it will prevent broken build from reaching integration testing when multiple QA teams will be affected

Acceptance Criteria

  • AC1: separate job group for QA SLE YaST team; this should concern o.s.d
  • AC2: We know how the openSUSE community, including release managers of Leap and Tumbleweed, would like to benefit from this (and if they see this as a benefit)
  • AC3: We have a clear list of test scenarios which the QA SLE YaST team owns
  • AC4: The purpose of each test scenario owned by the Y team is described

Tasks

Short-term: split job group, take responsibility for the review, set it as a precondition for other functional tests. If installation is broken, there is not much sense in testing other components.
Establish process to judge overall product quality.
Long-term: sub-team joins SysMgmt team for the QA and helping to establish earlier testing

Recommendation: Take care of better communication around this change (as discussed in f2f conversation - perhaps even a simple set of slides. We hate them. But we need to get the message across)

Further points

  • reduce scope for the reviewer (better focus), hence better understanding of the tests
  • will be easier to involve YaST team and collaborate with them
  • not much benefits for U-subteam, but definitely no harm
  • potentially will affect collaboration between subteams, learn HPC/HA experience

Subtasks

action #42191: [functional][y][epic] Have separate job group for YaST subteamResolvedriafarov

action #42227: [functional][y] Move relevant scenarios to YaST job group on OSDResolvedriafarov

action #42236: [functional][y] Identify all scenarios to be split into two parts, to have one part in YaST job groupResolvedriafarov

action #42503: [functional][y] Define test matrix for the YaST job groupResolvedriafarov

action #42578: [functional][y][spike] Rethink what is the purpose of create_hdd* scenariosResolvedJERiveraMoya

action #42914: [functional][y][u] Update review workflow for split domainsResolvedoorlov

action #43796: [functional][y] Implement ext4 specific test for autoyast installationResolvedJERiveraMoya

action #42494: [epic][functional][y] Split/adapt scenarios to move installer related part to YaST specific job groupResolvedriafarov

action #42941: [sle][functional][y] implement validation for lvm-full-encrypt and lvm-encrypt-separate-boot test suitesResolvedybonatakis

action #48173: [sle][functional][y] implement validation for encrypt lvm test suitesResolvedmloviska

action #48401: [functional][y] Implement test module to validate iscsi_ibft installationResolvedmloviska

action #48176: [sle][functional][y] implement validation for autoyast_gnome test suiteResolvedybonatakis

action #52508: [functional][y] Validate skip_registration+all-packages-iso scenario with modules which make senseRejectedriafarov

action #53258: [functional][y] Validate installation with btrfsResolvedoorlov

action #54779: [sle][functional][y] fix validation tests for encrypted lvm test suitesResolvedoorlov

action #55421: [functional][y] change btrfs test suite as per #53258Resolvedoorlov

action #56990: [functional][y] Validate minimal+base scenario with modules which make senseClosedybonatakis


Related issues

Related to openQA Tests - action #41852: [functional][y][sle] add more staging testsResolved2018-10-012018-11-20

Related to openQA Project - action #42851: [functional][y][tools] Implement view for multiple job groupsResolved2018-10-242018-12-04

History

#1 Updated by okurz almost 2 years ago

  • Category set to Enhancement to existing tests

#2 Updated by okurz almost 2 years ago

  • Target version set to Milestone 26

#3 Updated by riafarov almost 2 years ago

  • Due date set to 2018-10-09

due to changes in a related task

#4 Updated by okurz almost 2 years ago

  • Due date changed from 2018-10-09 to 2018-08-31

due to changes in a related task

#5 Updated by riafarov almost 2 years ago

  • Due date set to 2018-08-31

due to changes in a related task

#6 Updated by sebchlad almost 2 years ago

Thanks Rodion for writing down the idea of having separated QA SLE YaST team. It is a very clear statement and I see it fully aligned with what we've discussed over last several months.
I will add Alex C. as a watcher as his team members participate in the QA SLE YaST team.

I wonder why we consider finishing this by Milestone 26. This seems like we tackle here a very complex problem, but to me, I must admit, it doesn't look like that.
Of course this is a long term, perhaps more of a vision than a task: "Long-term: sub-team joins SysMgmt team for the QA and helping to establish earlier testing".

Looking at the project schedule - SP4 is about to be finished (from our pov).
SP1 will be entering quite important phases in 2-3 months from now.

I would consider more aggressive schedule for finishing this saga.

okurz: riafarov: what do you think?

I will propose some changes to the description of this ticket to better reflect "what should be done" in down-to-earth terms.

#7 Updated by okurz almost 2 years ago

  • Related to action #41852: [functional][y][sle] add more staging tests added

#8 Updated by riafarov almost 2 years ago

As a result of our discussion, I will change relations to have only mandatory tickets which have to be resolved and other, which aim improvements on established process.

#9 Updated by sebchlad almost 2 years ago

  • Subject changed from [functional][y][saga] Proceed with YaST sub-team split to [functional][y][saga] Establish YaST sub-team split
  • Description updated (diff)

#10 Updated by sebchlad almost 2 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#11 Updated by sebchlad almost 2 years ago

riafarov wrote:

As a result of our discussion, I will change relations to have only mandatory tickets which have to be resolved and other, which aim improvements on established process.

+2. Definitely a good idea.

If you don't mind I will propose some specific mandatory tasks, which we should get done in order to fulfill the exit criteria

#12 Updated by okurz almost 2 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#13 Updated by riafarov almost 2 years ago

  • Due date changed from 2018-11-06 to 2018-12-04

due to changes in a related task

#14 Updated by riafarov almost 2 years ago

First draft of the slides to explain motivation, benefits and plan can be found in the attachment section of the ticket.

#15 Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Related to action #42851: [functional][y][tools] Implement view for multiple job groups added

#16 Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from New to Blocked
  • Assignee set to okurz

Blocked by subtasks

#17 Updated by riafarov over 1 year ago

  • Due date changed from 2019-02-12 to 2019-02-26

due to changes in a related task

#18 Updated by okurz over 1 year ago

  • Due date changed from 2019-03-26 to 2019-06-18

due to changes in a related task

#19 Updated by riafarov over 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from [functional][y][saga] Establish YaST sub-team split to [functional][y][saga] Establish YaST team split

#20 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from okurz to riafarov

Move to new QSF-y PO after I moved to the "tools"-team. I mainly checked the subject line so in individual instances you might not agree to take it over completely into QSF-y. Feel free to reassign to me or someone else in this case. Thanks.

#21 Updated by riafarov about 1 year ago

  • Due date changed from 2019-06-18 to 2019-07-09

due to changes in a related task

#22 Updated by riafarov almost 1 year ago

  • Target version changed from Milestone 26 to Milestone 27

#23 Updated by mgriessmeier 11 months ago

  • Target version changed from Milestone 27 to Milestone 28

#24 Updated by riafarov 11 months ago

  • Due date changed from 2019-10-08 to 2019-10-22

due to changes in a related task

#25 Updated by riafarov 10 months ago

  • Target version changed from Milestone 28 to future

#26 Updated by riafarov 9 months ago

  • Due date changed from 2019-11-05 to 2019-11-19

due to changes in a related task

#27 Updated by riafarov 6 months ago

  • Due date changed from 2020-02-11 to 2020-03-24

due to changes in a related task

#28 Updated by riafarov 4 months ago

  • Due date changed from 2020-03-24 to 2020-04-21

due to changes in a related task

#29 Updated by riafarov 4 months ago

  • Due date changed from 2020-05-05 to 2020-05-19

due to changes in a related task: #42854

#30 Updated by riafarov 3 months ago

  • Status changed from Blocked to Resolved

Finally resolving.

Also available in: Atom PDF