openQA Project (public) » openQA Tests (public)

dzedro has a minor fix in https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12860

Why do we even need to hardcode dates which need a manual update of the test code from time to time?
The original test module was introduced in https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/3053
with commit bc47c07e5 referencing fate#322050 and #15306
How about searching for any version of gcc and checking that at least one gcc is not expired without hardcoding a date?

dzedro wrote:

zypper_lifecycle_toolchain is most useless test, it's nice to have it right, but I think nobody cares about this dates or at least the attention and work it already needed is just annoying.
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!

Why not just delete it then?

Yes not hardcoding the date is the solution, what will be the source of this information ?

You don't need the exact date as long as it has not yet expired, e.g.

• check that gcc5 has expired, i.e. expiration "Now" (already implemented)
• zypper se gcc to find current versions, read out latest, check that expiration is "!Now"

okurz wrote:

dzedro wrote:

zypper_lifecycle_toolchain is most useless test, it's nice to have it right, but I think nobody cares about this dates or at least the attention and work it already needed is just annoying.
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!

Why not just delete it then?

That would be so great and easy.

Yes not hardcoding the date is the solution, what will be the source of this information ?

You don't need the exact date as long as it has not yet expired, e.g.

• check that gcc5 has expired, i.e. expiration "Now" (already implemented)
• zypper se gcc to find current versions, read out latest, check that expiration is "!Now"

I will try to prepare some change to check the expiration differently.

dzedro wrote:

okurz wrote:

dzedro wrote:

zypper_lifecycle_toolchain is most useless test, it's nice to have it right, but I think nobody cares about this dates or at least the attention and work it already needed is just annoying.
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!

Why not just delete it then?

That would be so great and easy.

but I mean it! We still have the "zypper_lifecycle" test module. I would have suggested a PR already to delete the test module but as you mentioned that you would look into checking the expiration differently I leave that to you. Or ping me and I will propose the deletion PR :)

okurz wrote:

dzedro wrote:

okurz wrote:

dzedro wrote:

zypper_lifecycle_toolchain is most useless test, it's nice to have it right, but I think nobody cares about this dates or at least the attention and work it already needed is just annoying.
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!

Why not just delete it then?

That would be so great and easy.

but I mean it! We still have the "zypper_lifecycle" test module. I would have suggested a PR already to delete the test module but as you mentioned that you would look into checking the expiration differently I leave that to you. Or ping me and I will propose the deletion PR :)

Yes, but zypper_lifecycle is checking different product. I will either "fix" or delete it.