action #163784
Updated by tinita 5 months ago
## Observation openQA test in scenario openqa-Tumbleweed-dev-x86_64-openqa_install+publish@64bit-2G fails in [test_running](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/4333737/modules/test_running/steps/8) on command ``` retry -s 10 -r 6 -e -- sh -c 'test -f /var/lib/openqa/share/tests/*/.git/config ``` probably due to transient network errors. Same in https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/4333739#step/test_running/8 but investigation jobs are all green so after a short time the error could not be reproduced anymore. The actual error is visible in https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/4333739#step/test_running/6 in the middle of the JSON output: "Error detecting remote default branch name […]" which comes from ~~https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst/blob/master/OpenQA/Isotovideo/Utils.pm#L84~~ https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/blob/master/lib/OpenQA/Task/Git/Clone.pm#L60. https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst/blob/master/OpenQA/Isotovideo/Utils.pm#L84 . Just in before "handle_output" is called which should output the actual result from the underlying git command but somehow we only have an empty autoinst-log.txt ## Acceptance criteria * **AC1:** tests consistently pass even during intermittent outages during remote git command calls ## Further details Always latest result in this scenario: [latest](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/latest?arch=x86_64&distri=openqa&flavor=dev&machine=64bit-2G&test=openqa_install%2Bpublish&version=Tumbleweed) ## Suggestions ~~* * The `$handle_output` does already `die` if the `git` command fails, so apparently the git command was succesful but the output didn't match the expected one. Add the actual output in that error message. The handle_output error message should output the actual returned output from the git command~~ command ~~* * In my test I changed the git url to `github.comm`, so the git clone should already fail, but still I got the same error message `Error detecting remote default branch` in the test. Something to investigate~~ investigate * Investigate why we didn't see this in unit tests and fix or add an according test case * #163787 might help with investigation