https://progress.opensuse.org/https://progress.opensuse.org/themes/openSUSE/favicon/favicon.ico?15829177842021-07-08T08:07:15ZopenSUSE Project Management ToolopenQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4245732021-07-08T08:07:15Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>dzedro has a minor fix in <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12860" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12860</a></p>
<p>Why do we even need to hardcode dates which need a manual update of the test code from time to time?<br>
The original test module was introduced in <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/3053" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/3053</a><br>
with commit bc47c07e5 referencing fate#322050 and <a class="issue tracker-4 status-3 priority-4 priority-default closed child" title="action: [sles][functional]Feature 322050: Release lifecycle data for Toolchain Module (Resolved)" href="https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/15306">#15306</a><br>
How about searching for any version of gcc and checking that at least one gcc is not expired without hardcoding a date?</p>
openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4249782021-07-09T08:34:06Zdzedrojpupava@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>Resolved</i></li><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>0</i> to <i>100</i></li></ul><p>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.<br>
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!<br>
Yes not hardcoding the date is the solution, what will be the source of this information ?</p>
openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4252212021-07-09T16:44:54Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>dzedro wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why not just delete it then?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Yes not hardcoding the date is the solution, what will be the source of this information ?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You don't need the exact date as long as it has not yet expired, e.g.</p>
<ul>
<li>check that gcc5 has expired, i.e. expiration "Now" (already implemented)</li>
<li><code>zypper se gcc</code> to find current versions, read out latest, check that expiration is "!Now"</li>
</ul>
openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4271022021-07-14T10:41:03Zdzedrojpupava@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>okurz wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>dzedro wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why not just delete it then?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That would be so great and easy.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Yes not hardcoding the date is the solution, what will be the source of this information ?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You don't need the exact date as long as it has not yet expired, e.g.</p>
<ul>
<li>check that gcc5 has expired, i.e. expiration "Now" (already implemented)</li>
<li><code>zypper se gcc</code> to find current versions, read out latest, check that expiration is "!Now"</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>I will try to prepare some change to check the expiration differently.</p>
openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4272042021-07-14T12:47:56Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>dzedro wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>okurz wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>dzedro wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why not just delete it then?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That would be so great and easy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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 :)</p>
openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4273752021-07-15T07:47:33Zdzedrojpupava@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>okurz wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>dzedro wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>okurz wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>dzedro wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
Wop wop lifecycle date of gcc is (kind of) correct!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why not just delete it then?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That would be so great and easy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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 :)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, but zypper_lifecycle is checking different product. I will either "fix" or delete it.</p>
openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4273782021-07-15T07:47:46Zdzedrojpupava@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Resolved</i> to <i>New</i></li></ul> openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4278912021-07-16T09:00:42Zdzedrojpupava@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>In Progress</i></li></ul><p><a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12905" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12905</a></p>
openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4283772021-07-19T10:12:48Zdzedrojpupava@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>In Progress</i> to <i>Resolved</i></li></ul> openQA Tests - action #93186: [qem][maint][zypper_lifecycle_toolchain]test fails in zypper_lifecycle_toolchainhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/93186?journal_id=4331392021-08-04T10:22:25Zszarate
<ul><li><strong>Target version</strong> set to <i>QE-Core: Ready</i></li></ul>