QA (public) » openQA Project (public) » openQA Tests (public)

okurz wrote:

@acarvajal I suggest you try the kernel command line parameters that mdoucha suggested. Also you could try if QEMUCPU=host makes any difference, just a hunch :)

I have added QEMUCPU=host in the tests that run in the HANA validation openQA instance. Last time there were 3 failures with this issue out of 200+ jobs, so I guess it is a good place to try. I should see some results in the next runs on Monday.

BTW, interesting hunch. I am not seeing this issue in Power9 (100+ jobs in that same openQA instace), which made think that whatever's causing it could be related to qemu. I'll come back with some results next Monday.

I will also begin planning to introduce mdoucha's suggestions to gather more logs for the tests in osd.

acarvajal wrote:

okurz wrote:

@acarvajal I suggest you try the kernel command line parameters that mdoucha suggested. Also you could try if QEMUCPU=host makes any difference, just a hunch :)

I have added QEMUCPU=host in the tests that run in the HANA validation openQA instance. Last time there were 3 failures with this issue out of 200+ jobs, so I guess it is a good place to try. I should see some results in the next runs on Monday.

What I thought of is to not change the production tests but rather trigger an additional, dedicated test set, e.g. following https://progress.opensuse.org/projects/openqatests/wiki/Wiki#Statistical-investigation and after the weekend look at the corresponding test overview page to quickly get the overview of how many tests passed/failed.

I had to restart 2 tests with the failure yesterday in the HANA validation openQA instance.

So the difference between using QEMUCPU=host or not was 3 out of 200+ last week to 2 out of 200+ this week. I don't think this is statistically relevant, and the bad news is that the issue is still present.

I would look into implementing mdoucha's suggestions and triggering some additional jobs with and without QEMUCPU=host to do a more thorough analysis.

okurz wrote:

I have seen the symptom

[2021-07-11T01:38:13.388 CEST] [info] ::: basetest::runtest: # Test died: command 'mkfs -t ocfs2 -F -N 16 "/dev/vg_cluster_md/lv_openqa"' timed out at /usr/lib/os-autoinst/testapi.pm line 959.

likely more than once – or I keep getting back to the same job ;) – still, I am trying with auto-review to automatically detect such cases and retrigger according tests. The regex should be specific enough to only catch HAS tests but at any time it can be generalized or extended to cover alternative symptoms. quoting @acarvajal "hope you can find an easy way to detect those cases .... it's not easy as it can happen anytime and in any module during the test" but we should start somewhere :)

EDIT: Tested with echo https://openqa.suse.de/tests/6410236 | env host=openqa.suse.de openqa-investigate with openqa-investigate from github.com/os-autoinst/scripts/ . But openqa-investigate currently does not support cloning jobs that are part of a multi-machine cluster, see https://github.com/os-autoinst/scripts/commit/371467dafcefb9182530c790c33632f8cfa9a297#diff-f73cf39a07f6cf8cdb453862496919d06df16d07e58b274e68ea148dd1f7dae5

That's one of the symptoms.

I'd say whenever SUT is unexpectedly rebooted, tests will fail in one of two ways depending on what the test module was doing:

1. A time out in an assert_script_run (or similar), such as the sympton in this filesystem test module failure.
2. A failure in assert_screen such as in https://openqa.suse.de/tests/6426340#step/check_after_reboot/5

Since the majority of the HA test modules rely either on the root_console or the serial terminal, I think the first case will be more common, but I don't know if having a general rule to re-start tests when commands time out is safe.

Tested the auto-review regex with

$ echo https://openqa.suse.de/tests/6410225 | env dry_run=1 host=openqa.suse.de ./openqa-label-known-issues
openqa-cli api --host https://openqa.suse.de -X POST jobs/6410225/comments text=poo#95458 [HA] SUT reboots unexpectedly, leading to tests failing in HA scenarios auto_review:"(?s)tests/ha.*command.*mkfs -t ocfs2.*timed out.*match=root-console timed out":retry
openqa-cli api --host https://openqa.suse.de -X POST jobs/6410225/restart

so a comment would have been written and the test should have been restarted, assuming this works this way over the API for multi-machine clusters.

MDoucha wrote:

My first guess would be that the test somehow gets into a kernel panic. Add the ignore_level kernel command line parameter to grub.cfg during incident installation to see kernel backtraces in serial console logs. Here's an example how LTP adds the ignore_level kernel parameter:
https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/blob/master/tests/kernel/install_ltp.pm#L353

Correction of my suggestion: the kernel command line parameter is actually ignore_loglevel. Also updating the link above to permalink:
https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/blob/49342da7528b6bc0a8b418090487bc40c7f8e4ce/tests/kernel/install_ltp.pm#L359

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: migration_offline_scc_verify_sle15sp1_ltss_ha_alpha_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/6958789

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The label in the openQA scenario is removed

this ticket is exceeding its due-date. It popped up during the weekly QE sync 2021-09-22. We would appreciate a reaction within the next days, at least updating the due-date according to what we can realistically expect. See https://progress.opensuse.org/projects/openqatests/wiki#SLOs-service-level-objectives for details

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_qdevice_node2
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7350101

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_qdevice_node2
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7393110

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

so we discussed in a meeting. Thank you for inviting me :)

As this is a ticket about the tests themselves I suggest that you within qe-sap drive the work. And from the tools team we will be able to provide support and stand ready for collaboration. If you don't plan to have the issue fixed soon the according tests can also be unscheduled according to the QAM processes until (hopefully) eventually the tests can be brought back. One additional observation from my side: Some months ago we still had highly stable multi-machine tests for the areas "network" as well as "HPC" and "SAP" but it seems all three areas have not received a lot of love. There are multiple other areas where multi-machine tests are running just fine so I am not aware of any generic openQA problems. What I see are limited to aforementioned areas hence it's unlikely that the issues will go away until explicitly addressed because they are domain-specific. Based on my former experiences those issues could very well point to valid product regressions.
And https://openqa.suse.de/tests?match=wicked_ shows that openQA multi-machine tests relying on the network can work very reliably. No network related problem showing up there. A quick SQL query revealed that for the fail ratio of "wicked" tests within the last 10 days is 0.6% so very low. This shows that openQA multi-machine tests can be very stable and also shows that we don't have a generic problem in our tooling or infrastructure. Regardless if it's sporadic product issues or test design flaws at this point I recommend to focus on mitigating the negative impact on the openQA review procedures in short-term and remove the according tests from the schedule. Also see https://confluence.suse.com/display/openqa/QAM+openQA+review+guide as reference. During the time the tests are not within the validation schedule QE-SAP would need to ensure by other means that the product quality is sufficient.

@acarvajal does it make sense for you to stay assigned to this ticket?

@rbranco as direct followup to what we just discussed, have you seen #95458#note-29 ? I suggest to remove ha_qdevice_node2 and all related test suites from the validation job groups until the problem can be fixed. Can you create an according merge request for the test schedule in https://gitlab.suse.de/qa-maintenance/qam-openqa-yml ?

acarvajal wrote:

[…]

I appreciate your thorough analysis and all of it up to this point is completely correctly evaluated. But still we should react on the problem at hand: QE-SAP and/or HA tests sometimes "randomly fail", e.g. due to the reported "spontaneous reboot issues". The consequence is that qa-maintenance/bot-ng will not auto-approve according SLE maintenance updates and the group of openQA maintenance test reviewers that should merely "coordinate" are asked for help to move the according SLE maintenance updates forward. 1. These test reviewers should not even need to do that job because the team qe-sap should do it (see https://confluence.suse.com/display/qasle/openQA+QE+Maintenance+Review ) and 2. The openQA maintenance test reviewers do not have the capacity to fix all the different test instabilities themselves. So based on which individual issues you identified let me provide some specific questions or suggestions:

So, out of 1000 jobs qdevice/qnetd tests:

• 18 failures.
• 8 of those due to screen rendering --> Not related to the tests themselves.

even if that is the case. Is there a ticket to improve that situation?

• 4 possibly due to a product bug

so where is the follow-up for that? Just the job that was mentioned by openqa-review https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7393110#step/check_after_reboot/15 shows that a service fails to start up. If all cases would be like these then we should be be good. But this only works if everybody sees the test failures the same way.

• 1 due to worker performance --> Not related to the test itself.

ok, but which ticket covers this then? Commonly people say "worker performance issue" when tests apply too strict timeouts which need to be changed on the test level. If you find issues where you really think that it's such a bad performance that test changes won't help then please let us know about the specific cases so that we can look into them.

• 2 due to support server network connectivity issues --> Not related to the test themselves.

but which ticket then?

• 1 due to failed connection to IBS --> Could be due to a test setting, QAM bot test scheduling, or IBS repository not present.

in that case tests can still be improved with better retrying

[…]

Not a single failure related to this ticket. And more than that, not enough grounds for removing these tests from the schedule.

No idea why the focus on the qdevice/qnetd tests when this issue was opened for several different scenarios.

I came back to this ticket for two reasons: Because there is https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/95458#note-29 pointing to a test failing due to the "test issue" described in this ticket (even though this might not be true but the test is labeled like that). And second because the due-date was exceeded by more than ten days so violating https://progress.opensuse.org/projects/openqatests/wiki#SLOs-service-level-objectives hence I noticed it.

I also insist that decreasing test coverage should not be the approach, but I will refrain from beating this dead horse.

Well, removing the test (temporarily) until fixed should only be seen as last resort. And to be honest: I repeatedly mention that option as the way I would go to spawn some motivation to fix it ;)

okurz wrote:

1. These test reviewers should not even need to do that job because the team qe-sap should do it (see https://confluence.suse.com/display/qasle/openQA+QE+Maintenance+Review ) and 2. The openQA maintenance test reviewers do not have the capacity to fix all the different test instabilities themselves.

No disagreements there. What I disagree on - and what I have repeated more times than I care to count - is that the solution should never be dropping coverage. Even if as you say "randomly failing" tests impact automatic reviews so much, it's a practice that leads to a false sense of security. Even when the practice is followed on, it can lead to unacceptable drops in coverage (for example, see https://gitlab.suse.de/qa-maintenance/qam-openqa-yml/-/merge_requests/150 & https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/68932).

So based on which individual issues you identified let me provide some specific questions or suggestions:

OK. Feels like you're dodging my argument which was "why remove from the schedule a test that has a success rate of over 90%?", but let's go ahead.

So, out of 1000 jobs qdevice/qnetd tests:

• 18 failures.
• 8 of those due to screen rendering --> Not related to the tests themselves.

even if that is the case. Is there a ticket to improve that situation?

No idea. Is it?

• 4 possibly due to a product bug

so where is the follow-up for that? Just the job that was mentioned by openqa-review https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7393110#step/check_after_reboot/15 shows that a service fails to start up. If all cases would be like these then we should be be good. But this only works if everybody sees the test failures the same way.

Huh? I did mention https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7393110#step/check_after_reboot/15 below.

Is there a follow up to the 4 tests failing due to a product bug? Cannot say. First time I saw these failures was yesterday, and from what I could see, later tests on those scenarios passed.

Should I open a bug for an issue that's already fixed?

• 1 due to worker performance --> Not related to the test itself.

ok, but which ticket covers this then? Commonly people say "worker performance issue" when tests apply too strict timeouts which need to be changed on the test level. If you find issues where you really think that it's such a bad performance that test changes won't help then please let us know about the specific cases so that we can look into them.

"Test apply too strict timeouts"???? Give me a break!

If the response to any issue presented is always going to be "perhaps you have a wrong setting", "perhaps there is a problem in the test code" or "perhaps you were too aggressive with a timeout", then we will continue to ignore potential issues.

In this particular case:

• https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/blob/master/lib/hacluster.pm#L91
• "TIMEOUT_SCALE" : 2, from https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7456662/file/vars.json

Command waited for 2 whole minutes before failing. Is 2 minutes too aggressive? I do not think so.

I grant that I may have misspoken when claiming "slow worker" though. On that command, issue could also be network related. Sadly no way to tell from the failure, and of course same test, same scenario, but a later run (several in fact) show passing results: https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7549015

• 2 due to support server network connectivity issues --> Not related to the test themselves.

but which ticket then?

https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/95788

• 1 due to failed connection to IBS --> Could be due to a test setting, QAM bot test scheduling, or IBS repository not present.

in that case tests can still be improved with better retrying

Agree.

Well, removing the test (temporarily) until fixed should only be seen as last resort. And to be honest: I repeatedly mention that option as the way I would go to spawn some motivation to fix it ;)

Understood. Hope you succeed and manage to mobilize all the teams required to get to a solution. From my experience, even if QE-SAP are the experts on these scenarios, these random failures usually fall outside of QE-SAP field of expertise, so I do agree and believe that a coordinated effort is required.

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_beta_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7671905

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: qam_ha_hawk_haproxy_node01
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7749089

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_ctdb_node01
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7829513

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_ctdb_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7871807

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_diskless_sbd_qdevice_node1
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7976342

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Today I was looking it this again when solving issues with this: https://openqa.suse.de/tests/8012986#step/check_logs/2

From my observation it look like, that ALL jobs which running time reaching 2h fails, but the faster ones around 1h success. Between those it's random, but also usually success: https://openqa.suse.de/tests/8005979#next_previous

Question is, why the same update once took almost 2 hours and fails:

 check_logs   :22413:saptune  3 days ago ( 01:55 hours ) 

• https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7993472

but day later it took just a 1 hour and success:

  :22413:saptune  2 days ago ( 01:10 hours ) 

• https://openqa.suse.de/tests/8005979#:~:text=%3A22413%3Asaptune,days%20ago%20(%2001%3A10%20hours%20)

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: qam_ha_rolling_upgrade_migration_node01
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/8192134

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

I can confirm. So far this looks good. openqa-query-for-job-label poo#95458 shows

2201470|2022-02-22 04:16:29|done|failed|container-host-microos||openqaworker7
8318522|2022-03-13 03:51:09|done|failed|qam_ha_rolling_update_node01||openqaworker9
8306778|2022-03-10 14:14:56|done|failed|ha_beta_node02||malbec
8296656|2022-03-09 17:30:46|done|failed|ha_beta_node02||QA-Power8-5-kvm
8297435|2022-03-09 12:45:09|done|failed|migration_offline_dvd_verify_sle15sp1_ltss_ha_alpha_node01||openqaworker3
8297914|2022-03-09 10:33:55|done|failed|ha_hawk_haproxy_node02||openqaworker6
8297846|2022-03-09 10:07:52|done|failed|ha_alpha_node01||QA-Power8-5-kvm
8292351|2022-03-09 05:02:30|done|failed|ha_qdevice_node2||QA-Power8-5-kvm
8293695|2022-03-09 04:59:57|done|failed|ha_qdevice_node2||openqaworker-arm-1
8293662|2022-03-09 04:38:34|done|failed|ha_ctdb_node02||openqaworker-arm-2
8293690|2022-03-09 03:52:44|done|failed|ha_priority_fencing_node01||openqaworker-arm-3

so the latest failures were on 2022-03-09

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_priority_fencing_node01
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/8439544#step/iscsi_client/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 28 days if nothing changes in this ticket.

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: ha_delta_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/8741156#step/iscsi_client/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 60 days if nothing changes in this ticket.

This ticket is 10 days after the due-date. Please consider closing this ticket or move the due-date accordingly.

I vote for closing this ticket as the issue has nothing to do with SAP/HA.

This ticket is 10 days after the due-date. Please consider closing this ticket or move the due-date accordingly.

rbranco wrote:

I vote for closing this ticket as the issue has nothing to do with SAP/HA.

Is the issue gone? Judging by https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/95458#note-47 it isn't.

Before closing I would vote for re-assignment.

This ticket is 10 days after the due-date. Please consider closing this ticket or move the due-date accordingly.

acarvajal wrote:

rbranco wrote:

I vote for closing this ticket as the issue has nothing to do with SAP/HA.

Is the issue gone? Judging by https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/95458#note-47 it isn't.

Before closing I would vote for re-assignment.

This poo is too generic IMHO. Can you please reassign to someone? I will be in squad rotation in November until February.

This ticket is 10 days after the due-date. Please consider closing this ticket or move the due-date accordingly.

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: migration_offline_dvd_verify_sle12sp5_ha_alpha_node01_atmg
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/9918083#step/migrate_clvmd_to_lvmlockd/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 44 days if nothing changes in this ticket.

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: migration_offline_dvd_verify_sle15sp2_ltss_ha_alpha_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/10027954#step/check_after_reboot/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 28 days if nothing changes in this ticket.

Hello @fgerling, I'm wondering whether there is any update about this issue? It has been blocking the autoapproval for quite a few maintenance updates lately.

I'm not sure how you define specific, but I don't recall seeing this issue anywhere else than HA-related jobs. I'm not aware of any ticket hand-over process; I guess the rule of thumb has always been that the squad whose tests are failing is also responsible for the fix. In any case, I'm pondering about the usefulness of a test that fails so often. Wouldn't it make more sense to just unschedule them?

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: migration_offline_dvd_verify_sle15sp2_ltss_ha_alpha_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/10218340#step/check_after_reboot/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 28 days if nothing changes in this ticket.

I can see that grep sometimes times out with the regex in the title.
Since (?s) is used, every .* can span over multiple lines, and that involves a lot of backtracking and might not be needed. Please consider to change some of the .* to [^\n]*, or drop the (?s) and change the .* that has to be line spanning to [\S\s]*.

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: migration_offline_scc_verify_sle12sp4_ltss_ha_alpha_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/10562975#step/migrate_clvmd_to_lvmlockd/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 80 days if nothing changes in this ticket.

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: xfstests_xfs-xfs-reflink
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/11162974#step/run/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 160 days if nothing changes in this ticket.

This is an autogenerated message for openQA integration by the openqa_review script:

This bug is still referenced in a failing openQA test: migration_offline_scc_verify_sle15sp3_ha_alpha_node02
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/14373096#step/check_after_reboot/1

To prevent further reminder comments one of the following options should be followed:

1. The test scenario is fixed by applying the bug fix to the tested product or the test is adjusted
2. The openQA job group is moved to "Released" or "EOL" (End-of-Life)
3. The bugref in the openQA scenario is removed or replaced, e.g. label:wontfix:boo1234

Expect the next reminder at the earliest in 316 days if nothing changes in this ticket.