https://progress.opensuse.org/https://progress.opensuse.org/themes/openSUSE/favicon/favicon.ico?15829177842021-09-09T10:17:42ZopenSUSE Project Management ToolopenQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4439582021-09-09T10:17:42ZVANASTASIADISvasilios.anastasiadis@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Description</strong> updated (<a title="View differences" href="/journals/443958/diff?detail_id=420813">diff</a>)</li></ul> openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4439702021-09-09T10:30:11Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Project</strong> changed from <i>openQA Infrastructure</i> to <i>openQA Project</i></li><li><strong>Category</strong> set to <i>Regressions/Crashes</i></li></ul> openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4439762021-09-09T10:52:52Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Subject</strong> changed from <i>deleted asset is still shown up on #downloads</i> to <i>Non-existing asset is still shown up on #downloads</i></li></ul><p>This is a side-effect of <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4136" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4136</a>. As part of this change we're registering assets with their jobs even if they don't exist yet to be able to associate them with their jobs. That's important because only then the cleanup code knows that child jobs need assets (created by a parent job) and can preserve it at least until all children ran. In this case the asset is never created by the parent job¹ and apparently also not actually used by the child job². Maybe we should simply hide such assets³ within the UI or make it apparent that the asset isn't existing (e.g. just render the asset name but no link). Since the <code>openqa-clone-job</code> output is mentioned this should also apply to the API route this script is using to query assets.</p>
<p>However, the job setup is still questionable. I mean, openQA is basically told that this asset is created/consumed so it isn't too unreasonable to assume the asset is there and required when cloning the child job. As a workaround you can use <code>--skip-download</code> and do the downloads which are actually needed yourself.</p>
<hr>
<p>¹ The parent job has <code>PUBLISH_PFLASH_VARS=SLES-15-SP4-x86_64-Build31.2-containers-uefi-vars.qcow2</code> but never actually uploaded the asset according to the worker log. The initial ticket description claims the asset has been deleted but which implies it has been created but I don't see that. I'm wondering how it was concluded that the asset has been deleted/created.</p>
<p>² The child job failed but it doesn't look like it failed due to the absence of the asset.</p>
<p>³ This would basically be all assets where <code>size</code> is <code>NULL</code>/<code>undef</code>.</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4439972021-09-09T11:37:11Zybonatakisioannis.bonatakis@suse.com
<ul></ul><p><code>SLES-15-SP4-x86_64-Build31.2-containers-uefi-vars.qcow2</code> exists in <a href="https://openqa.suse.de/admin/assets" class="external">https://openqa.suse.de/admin/assets</a><br>
but the link in the <a href="https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7059661" class="external">https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7059661</a> and <a href="https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7059660" class="external">https://openqa.suse.de/tests/7059660</a> give me 404. </p>
<p>i run the the whole chain building the hdd(as you said the image is not uploaded, so i assume that it was never deleted) and then triggered the children. What am i missing?</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4440062021-09-09T11:40:42Zfavogtfvogt@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>mkittler wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>However, the job setup is still questionable. I mean, openQA is basically told that this asset is created/consumed so it isn't too unreasonable to assume the asset is there and required when cloning the child job.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>FWICT, this is to have a single test suite definition which works for UEFI and non-UEFI tests, e.g. <code>upgrade_Leap_15.2_kde</code></p>
<pre><code>BOOTFROM=cdrom
DESKTOP=kde
HDD_1=%DISTRI%-%ORIGINAL_VERSION%-%ARCH%-GM-kde@%MACHINE%.qcow2
MAX_JOB_TIME=14400
ORIGINAL_VERSION=15.2
UEFI_PFLASH_VARS=%DISTRI%-%ORIGINAL_VERSION%-%ARCH%-GM-kde@%MACHINE%-uefi-vars.qcow2
UPGRADE=1
WORKER_CLASS=heavyload
</code></pre>
<p>It would require either overriding <code>UEFI_PFLASH_VARS</code> in the job group for non-EFI machines or duplicating the test suite.</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4440092021-09-09T11:43:07Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>If the asset appears on <a href="https://openqa.suse.de/admin/assets" class="external">https://openqa.suse.de/admin/assets</a> it might still be missing if the parent job doesn't actually create it (as explained before).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>i run the the whole chain building the hdd and then triggered the children. What am i missing?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As explained before, to me it looks like the job chain simply doesn't create that asset (despite mentioning it in the job settings). I doubt just re-running the job chain changes this. Note that we're takling about SLES-15-SP4-x86_64-Build31.2-containers-uefi-vars.qcow2, SLES-15-SP4-x86_64-Build31.2-containers.qcow2 seems to be created and shouldn't give you 404.</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4445522021-09-10T08:07:43ZVANASTASIADISvasilios.anastasiadis@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Priority</strong> changed from <i>Normal</i> to <i>High</i></li><li><strong>Target version</strong> set to <i>Ready</i></li></ul><p>If this is a recent regression it should be on the backlog. Bumping the priority.</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4452482021-09-13T09:04:59Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Related to</strong> <i><a class="issue tracker-4 status-3 priority-4 priority-default closed behind-schedule" href="/issues/97304">action #97304</a>: Assets deleted even if there are still pending jobs size:M</i> added</li></ul> openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4452542021-09-13T09:13:04Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Subject</strong> changed from <i>Non-existing asset is still shown up on #downloads</i> to <i>Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloads</i></li><li><strong>Priority</strong> changed from <i>High</i> to <i>Normal</i></li></ul><p>So I am confused and I am wondering what people would actually expect. I would of course also prefer if we would have less special handling for those dreaded "uefi-vars" assets.</p>
<p>But let's ask <a class="user active user-mention" href="https://progress.opensuse.org/users/32492">@ybonatakis</a> what would you prefer: For the clone script to handle that in a special way to not fail on such non-existing assets or just for the webUI to not show it (or show it but not as downloadable link)?</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4474442021-09-20T08:55:48Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>With this PR non-existing assets are distinguishable on the downloads tab: <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4212" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4212</a></p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4515752021-10-01T13:19:09Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Related to</strong> <i><a class="issue tracker-4 status-3 priority-5 priority-high3 closed behind-schedule" href="/issues/99672">action #99672</a>: [openqa][tools] Non-existing `…-uefi-vars.qcow2` asset disturbs openqa-clone-job workflow</i> added</li></ul> openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4521392021-10-05T08:29:57Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>This PR improves the clone-job script: <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4261" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4261</a></p>
<p>Together with the previous PR this ticket <em>should</em> be covered. (It is still not quite clear what's wanted exactly.)</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4526162021-10-06T08:28:26Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>Feedback</i></li><li><strong>Assignee</strong> set to <i>mkittler</i></li></ul><p>The suggestions in this ticket are very wrong. The cleanup did not delete anything because the asset hasn't been created in the first place. The clone-job script can deal with this now since <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4261" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/4261</a> has been merged and the UI shows the asset as non-existent.</p>
<p>I would say that's good enough so I'm waiting for feedback.</p>
openQA Project - action #98388: Non-existing asset "uefi-vars" is still shown up on #downloadshttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/98388?journal_id=4538122021-10-11T09:06:42Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Feedback</i> to <i>Resolved</i></li></ul><p>Not feedback from the author for a month so I'm considering it resolved.</p>