action #48173
closedcoordination #40475: [functional][y][saga] Establish YaST team split
coordination #42494: [epic][functional][y] Split/adapt scenarios to move installer related part to YaST specific job group
[sle][functional][y] implement validation for encrypt lvm test suites
Added by riafarov about 5 years ago. Updated almost 5 years ago.
0%
Description
See motivation in the parent ticket.
We have cryptlvm and which runs standard set of test modules, which doesn't make sense. What we need to validate is lvm and encryption setup
Crosscheck parts which can be reused from #42941, as setup will match there, depending on the distribution and architecture.
Acceptance criteria¶
- Only relevant test modules are scheduled for cryptlvm scenario for SLE and openSUSE
- Partitioning is validated after installation for SLE and openSUSE
- cryptlvm is moved to YaST job group
Suggestions¶
Test suite is also executed on uefi.
Updated by riafarov about 5 years ago
- Copied from action #42941: [sle][functional][y] implement validation for lvm-full-encrypt and lvm-encrypt-separate-boot test suites added
Updated by riafarov about 5 years ago
- Copied to action #48176: [sle][functional][y] implement validation for autoyast_gnome test suite added
Updated by okurz about 5 years ago
- Due date deleted (
2019-03-12) - Target version changed from Milestone 23 to Milestone 25
riafarov wrote:
See motivation in the parent ticket.
there is no parent ticket? I think you can not have a parent ticket when you keep the "Copied from" relation.
We have cryptlvm and which runs standard set of test modules, which doesn't make sense.
What we need to validate is lvm and encryption setup
From my past experience I think it very much makes sense to run a "standard set of test modules" also based on an encrypted storage setup. However we might want to layer tests differently, e.g. first the validation of lvm+encryption and then trigger the "standard set" maybe even based on a published image?
Acceptance criteria¶
- Only relevant test modules are scheduled for cryptlvm scenario for SLE and openSUSE
If you mean with "only relevant" to not schedule the default set anymore then I think we should discuss that further.
In general if you are ok I would prioritize other tickets for next sprints as already preplanned and actually make this ticket not a subticket from the epic #42191 but a follow-up which actually is the case right now because it does not have the parent ticket :) Ok with that and a move to a later milestone after SLE15SP1 GM or as soon as possible before GMC?
Updated by riafarov about 5 years ago
- Copied from deleted (action #42941: [sle][functional][y] implement validation for lvm-full-encrypt and lvm-encrypt-separate-boot test suites)
Updated by riafarov about 5 years ago
- Copied to deleted (action #48176: [sle][functional][y] implement validation for autoyast_gnome test suite)
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Estimated time set to 8.00 h
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
- Due date changed from 2019-06-18 to 2019-07-02
- Target version changed from Milestone 25 to Milestone 26
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
- Due date changed from 2019-07-02 to 2019-07-16
Updated by mloviska almost 5 years ago
Do we want to migrate all cryptlvm test suites?
Including cryptlvm_minimal_x, cryptlvm+activate_existing+DASD@s390x-zVM-vswitch-l2 etc. ?
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
mloviska wrote:
Do we want to migrate all cryptlvm test suites?
Including cryptlvm_minimal_x, cryptlvm+activate_existing+DASD@s390x-zVM-vswitch-l2 etc. ?
Nope, not in the scope of this ticket, but as the next steps.
Updated by mloviska almost 5 years ago
We just need to do minor modification of existing validate_lvm_encrypt.pm.
http://eris.suse.cz/tests/15746#
I see this test suite same as lvm-full-encrypt@64bit.
Both SUTs are LVM-over-LUKS installations, with minor differences such as MS-DOS vs GPT, or one is configured via Expert partitioner and the other Guided partitioner.
Updated by mloviska almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from Workable to In Progress
Parted data from both test suites
Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!
BYT;
/dev/sr0:4086MB:scsi:2048:2048:unknown:QEMU QEMU CD-ROM:;
BYT;
/dev/vda:24.7GB:virtblk:512:512:msdos:Virtio Block Device:;
1:1049kB:419MB:418MB:ext4::boot, type=83;
2:419MB:24.7GB:24.3GB:::lvm, type=8e;
Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!
BYT;
/dev/sr0:4086MB:scsi:2048:2048:unknown:QEMU QEMU CD-ROM:;
BYT;
/dev/vda:21.5GB:virtblk:512:512:msdos:Virtio Block Device:;
1:1049kB:419MB:418MB:ext4::boot, type=83;
2:419MB:21.5GB:21.1GB:::lvm, type=8e;
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
- Due date changed from 2019-07-16 to 2019-07-30
Updated by mloviska almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Feedback
Updated by mloviska almost 5 years ago
I have moved ppc64le, intel + bios, intel + uefi and aarch64 testsuites to yast group in sle12 and sle15 job groups. Mainframe jobs have been left untouched.
- VRs:
ppc does not work because of serial console
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
As per our discussion, we resolve this ticket and I will create followup ticket for the 2 cases, where it didn't work:
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/3161988 and https://openqa.suse.de/tests/3161997 (looks like virtio console is not available on ppc64le workers).
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
- Copied to action #54779: [sle][functional][y] fix validation tests for encrypted lvm test suites added
Updated by riafarov almost 5 years ago
- Copied to deleted (action #54779: [sle][functional][y] fix validation tests for encrypted lvm test suites)