action #47039
closed[functional][u] test in vlc wastes 30 seconds without us noticing because of `match_typed`
0%
Description
Observation¶
openQA test in scenario opensuse-15.1-NET-x86_64-xfce@64bit-2G fails in
vlc
to press the 'ret' key after detecting the correctly typed launch string, the test wastes 30s waiting and then continues by retyping and succeeding.
The match_typed parameter was introduced with #25972 and we seem to use it correctly but simply because we do not match the needle the test wastes time and we do not realize
Acceptance criteria¶
- AC1: No obvious time waste can occur without us noticing
Task¶
- Remove the arguments target_match and match_typed
Suggestions¶
Because we do not actually rely on the needle with tag target_match_vlc the test passes but we waste time. Either we get rid of the match_typed behaviour again or we ensure that we match the target_match_vlc needle in the end before continuing and fail otherwise.
Further details¶
Always latest result in this scenario: latest
Updated by okurz about 5 years ago
- Related to action #25972: [opensuse][krypton][functional][medium] test fails in firefox - html5test page does not show up, is the address typed at all? added
Updated by okurz about 5 years ago
- Related to action #47933: [functional][u] test fails in vlc - unreliably closing the first_time_wizard - the RET key goes to the checkbox for "send data" added
Updated by mgriessmeier almost 5 years ago
- Target version changed from Milestone 24 to Milestone 26
Updated by mgriessmeier over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from Milestone 26 to Milestone 30+
Updated by SLindoMansilla over 4 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Status changed from New to Workable
- Priority changed from High to Normal
- Estimated time set to 42.00 h
Updated by jorauch over 4 years ago
- Status changed from Workable to In Progress
Updated by jorauch over 4 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Feedback
Verifications provided, waiting for feedback
Updated by okurz over 4 years ago
@SLindoMansilla I just saw the PR now. Unfortunately the suggestion in #47039#note-7 is not a good one. Both parameters have been added for a reason. It would be naive to assume that they are there for no reason and that whoever added them was not thinking clearly or something. Please read the "Suggestion" in the description again.
Updated by jorauch over 4 years ago
Updated by jorauch over 4 years ago
PR merged, waiting for verification in production
Updated by jorauch over 4 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
No failures in newest build, considering this as closed