QA » openQA Project

A simple approach would be: When ever isotovideo or its sub processes encounter a fatal error condition where a single-line error message is available it is written into a file in the pool directory. Subsequent errors are likely only symptoms from tearing down the whole stack and should not override the file once it is there. In the end the worker can simply check for that file and incorporate its contents into the reason.

Was it a mistake to unassign @cdywan?

To answer your question: Yes, we could make use of the same file. The current file is updated at a single place and it might be updated from time to time. The "error file" might be created from any place and once it is there it should not be further updated to stay as close at the source of the problem as possible. Due to these differences it might still be the simplest approach to just use a new file and avoid interference between different features/aspects.

os-autoinst part here https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst/pull/1383

https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/2924 OpenQA part here

I do wonder where we want to enforce this being a single line. Do we want to check the number of lines when reading the reason? And how does this relate to what's proposed in #25814#note-15

cdywan wrote:

[…] And how does this relate to what's proposed in #25814#note-15

Well, what I mentioned there: "We can extend that concept to every not-passed job as long as we limit the size that we store in the database, e.g. cut reason string at a reasonable, human-readable length, e.g. 120 characters. This way we can also load the reason synchronously."

So we can keep as much data, e.g. multiple, long lines when we are talking about storing in files and job results but as soon as we parse the reason into the database, e.g. the API call from the worker, we should trim.

The PR for the openQA part has been merged.

@cdywan Have you already prepared changed for os-autoinst? I've just picked up the ticket #64884 but now I'm realizing that you're working on the same area so it would be better to implement this ticket first.

mkittler wrote:

The PR for the openQA part has been merged.

@cdywan Have you already prepared changed for os-autoinst? I've just picked up the ticket #64884 but now I'm realizing that you're working on the same area so it would be better to implement this ticket first.

Yes. Apparently there's a failure in CI which I need to sort out (https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst/pull/1383), will look into that.

Your PR has been merged. If that's all what was left to do you can mark the ticket as resolved.

It seems to work. As mentioned in the chat I'll need to do some refactoring for #64884. So if anything else comes up I'd like to handle it as part of my changes for #64884 so we don't interfere with each other.