Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

QE: Get rid of tools pool repos #9674

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

QE: Get rid of tools pool repos #9674

wants to merge 14 commits into from

Conversation

srbarrios
Copy link
Member

What does this PR change?

This PR is the continuation for https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/issues/26190

GUI diff

No difference.

  • DONE

Documentation

  • No documentation needed

  • DONE

Test coverage

ℹ️ If a major new functionality is added, it is strongly recommended that tests for the new functionality are added to the Cucumber test suite

  • Cucumber tests were removed

  • DONE

Links

Ports:

  • Manager-4.3

  • Manager-5.0

  • DONE

Changelogs

Make sure the changelogs entries you are adding are compliant with https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/wiki/Contributing#changelogs and https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/wiki/Contributing#uyuni-projectuyuni-repository

If you don't need a changelog check, please mark this checkbox:

  • No changelog needed

If you uncheck the checkbox after the PR is created, you will need to re-run changelog_test (see below)

Re-run a test

If you need to re-run a test, please mark the related checkbox, it will be unchecked automatically once it has re-run:

  • Re-run test "changelog_test"
  • Re-run test "backend_unittests_pgsql"
  • Re-run test "java_pgsql_tests"
  • Re-run test "schema_migration_test_pgsql"
  • Re-run test "susemanager_unittests"
  • Re-run test "javascript_lint"
  • Re-run test "spacecmd_unittests"

Before you merge

Check How to branch and merge properly!

@srbarrios srbarrios self-assigned this Jan 23, 2025
@srbarrios srbarrios requested a review from a team as a code owner January 23, 2025 15:29
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

👋 Hello! Thanks for contributing to our project.
Acceptance tests will take some time (aprox. 1h), please be patient ☕
You can see the progress at the end of this page and at https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/pull/9674/checks
Once tests finish, if they fail, you can check 👀 the cucumber report. See the link at the output of the action.
You can also check the artifacts section, which contains the logs at https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/pull/9674/checks.

If you are unsure the failing tests are related to your code, you can check the "reference jobs". These are jobs that run on a scheduled time with code from master. If they fail for the same reason as your build, it means the tests or the infrastructure are broken. If they do not fail, but yours do, it means it is related to your code.

Reference tests:

KNOWN ISSUES

Sometimes the build can fail when pulling new jar files from download.opensuse.org . This is a known limitation. Given this happens rarely, when it does, all you need to do is rerun the test. Sorry for the inconvenience.

For more tips on troubleshooting, see the troubleshooting guide.

Happy hacking!
⚠️ You should not merge if acceptance tests fail to pass. ⚠️

srbarrios
srbarrios commented Jan 23, 2025
View reviewed changes
testsuite/features/step_definitions/command_steps.rb
# Needed because in SLES15SP3 and openSUSE 15.3 and higher, firewalld will replace this package.
# But the tools_update_repo's priority doesn't allow to cope with the obsoletes option from firewalld.
if os_version.to_f >= 15.3
node.run('zypper addlock -r tools_additional_repo firewalld-prometheus-config')
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not 100% sure if that still need. So, I need to run these changes in a pipeline, to assure this is fine.
But... I first need to merge and rebase my pending PRs: #9670 #9667

ktsamis
ktsamis requested changes Jan 23, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ktsamis ktsamis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to rename the scenarios to change the client tools name to os pool name or something descriptive. I'm also not sure why we need to disable os_pool_repo

Bischoff
Bischoff previously approved these changes Jan 23, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@Bischoff Bischoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

see nitpicks + maybe update copyright dates

testsuite/features/secondary/min_ansible_control_node.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
testsuite/features/secondary/minssh_ansible_control_node.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
testsuite/features/secondary/minssh_ansible_control_node.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@srbarrios srbarrios force-pushed the qe-get-rid-of-tools-pool branch from 74dbb7a to 25fbeae Compare January 23, 2025 15:42
@srbarrios srbarrios force-pushed the qe-get-rid-of-tools-pool branch from 25fbeae to c58047d Compare January 23, 2025 15:45
@srbarrios
Copy link
Member Author

srbarrios commented Jan 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

We need to rename the scenarios to change the client tools name to os pool name or something descriptive. I'm also not sure why we need to disable os_pool_repo

Scenarios renamed.
About os_pool_repo I can't touch it, and we will need to keep it for now.

We created dev repositories with dev channels for those repositories coming from us, so basically, tools. But we can't do the same for the OS repo, if we do, it will require to synchronize into the server that full new dev repository during the reposync stage, and the os_pool_repo is huge, so... we keep using the original repository (or our minima mirror).

We can revisit this in the future, but I'd like to go slowly with these kind of refactors.

@ktsamis ktsamis self-requested a review January 24, 2025 11:59
ktsamis
ktsamis previously approved these changes Jan 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
@srbarrios
Copy link
Member Author

Testing it here https://ci.suse.de/view/Manager/view/Uyuni/job/uyuni-master-dev-acceptance-tests-NUE/6384/console

@srbarrios srbarrios force-pushed the qe-get-rid-of-tools-pool branch 3 times, most recently from 4d8d364 to 732e46c Compare January 30, 2025 08:58
@srbarrios srbarrios force-pushed the qe-get-rid-of-tools-pool branch from df35611 to 5cb5954 Compare January 30, 2025 10:25
@srbarrios srbarrios force-pushed the qe-get-rid-of-tools-pool branch from e72ce13 to 3b6f5c3 Compare January 30, 2025 14:37
@srbarrios srbarrios force-pushed the qe-get-rid-of-tools-pool branch 5 times, most recently from a281e81 to 4b0a9f1 Compare January 31, 2025 11:37
@srbarrios srbarrios force-pushed the qe-get-rid-of-tools-pool branch from 4b0a9f1 to fd8fa69 Compare January 31, 2025 11:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ktsamis ktsamis ktsamis left review comments

@Bischoff Bischoff Bischoff left review comments

Assignees

@srbarrios srbarrios

Labels
build-validation-features core-features ruby_rubocop secondary-features test-framework testing
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@srbarrios @Bischoff @ktsamis