action #50180

[functional][y] Make installation_overview page processing consistent (installation_overview and installation_overview_before are either unified or serve single purpose)

Added by riafarov about 1 month ago. Updated 3 days ago.

Status:ResolvedStart date:28/06/2018
Priority:NormalDue date:04/06/2019
Assignee:ybonatakis% Done:

0%

Category:Bugs in existing tests
Target version:SUSE QA tests - Milestone 25
Difficulty:hard
Duration: 244

Description

Observation

We've a module called "installation_overview_before" which can - depending on set variables (e.g. WORKAROUND_DEPS or BREAK_DEPS) - handle broken dependencies while installing SLES.
In the most recent build of SP4 we noticed that this module is sometimes scheduled, sometimes not.
Also the already mentioned variables are set for some testsuites but not all of them.

An example of a functional test scheduling this module is:
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/latest?version=15-SP1&arch=x86_64&machine=64bit&test=allmodules%2Ballpatterns&flavor=Installer-DVD&distri=sle

Problem

How do we want to continue using this module? We should decide on one single solution. Current suggestions of mine would be:

  1. Schedule it on all tests we run which install SLES
  2. Only schedule it in specific test-cases (I already saw some testsuite containing something like "+workaround_modules" on OSD)
  3. Don't schedule it at all and remove the module if it is not needed/useful any longer (I somehow doubt that)

The question after all is, if we can use and apply the modules function (what does it actually do?) in a useful way for our automated tests.

Acceptance criteria

  1. installation_overview and installation_overview_before are unified into single module or separated by functional load (one per module)
  2. Name of the module reflects the purpose of the module

Additional info

I've set the difficulty of this to [hard] since there are maybe hundreds of tests using this module. Figuring out where it is needed, what it does and ultimately adjusting the module could have a big impact on automated testing.

Excerpt from IRC where this question was raised:

13:29 <nsinger> okurz: I wonder why we've a module for workarounding dep-issues but it is only active in "allpatterns"
13:29 <nsinger> okurz: is this by accident? Worth a poo to include this module in every installation?
13:30 <okurz> nsinger: yes please. I guess we should not try to answer this today because it needs a bit of "history lesson" before we can go further but IMHO we can improve -> please create ticket
13:31 <nsinger> okurz: that's why I asked. I knew there is some history I'm not aware of :D

Related issues

Copied from openQA Tests - action #37985: [functional][y][hard] Make installation_overview page pro... Resolved 28/06/2018 09/04/2019

History

#1 Updated by riafarov about 1 month ago

  • Copied from action #37985: [functional][y][hard] Make installation_overview page processing consistent (installation_overview and installation_overview_before are either unified or serve single purpose) added

#3 Updated by riafarov about 1 month ago

What's about the jobs I've pointed you to when we checked where we have packages conflicts? Also, could you please run some test from staging just to be sure?

#4 Updated by ybonatakis about 1 month ago

one of them failed. which needed to be resolved. https://openqa.suse.de/tests/2799887#

#5 Updated by riafarov about 1 month ago

  • Due date changed from 23/04/2019 to 07/05/2019
  • Status changed from In Progress to Feedback

#7 Updated by ybonatakis about 1 month ago

the VR of the latest fix https://openqa.suse.de/tests/2821158

#9 Updated by JERiveraMoya 19 days ago

  • Due date changed from 07/05/2019 to 21/05/2019
  • Status changed from Feedback to In Progress

We are checking twice for the same variable, so we need to simplify this part according to @asmorodskyi. Moved to next sprint.

#10 Updated by mgriessmeier 9 days ago

  • Target version changed from Milestone 24 to Milestone 25

just moving to M25

#11 Updated by JERiveraMoya 5 days ago

We should move this ticket to feedback because there is a PR in review, right?

#12 Updated by ybonatakis 5 days ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Feedback

PR been merged. Some VR needed

#13 Updated by JERiveraMoya 5 days ago

  • Due date changed from 21/05/2019 to 04/06/2019

#14 Updated by ybonatakis 4 days ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

#15 Updated by tinawang123 4 days ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to In Progress

#16 Updated by ybonatakis 3 days ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved

Also available in: Atom PDF