Use pandoc-common instead of python3-kickstart for package tests #170

2023-04-24T15:34:50Z

tcooper commented

2023-04-24 15:34:50 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Reasoning:

pandoc is not in critpath so will not itself be tested
pandoc is widely used and actively maintained
package is noarch
package has minimal deps

Hopefully this will work for everything. For some reason, the "use python3-blivet for pykickstart tests" fails mysteriously sometimes, see e.g. https://openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org/tests/2672282

Reasoning: 1. pandoc is not in critpath so will not itself be tested 2. pandoc is widely used and actively maintained 3. package is noarch 4. package has minimal deps Hopefully this will work for everything. For some reason, the "use python3-blivet for pykickstart tests" fails mysteriously sometimes, see e.g. https://openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org/tests/2672282

akatch (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2023-04-24 15:34:50 +00:00

tcooper commented

2023-04-29 17:49:37 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Resolution tested/verified in https://openqa.rockylinux.org/tests/24557#

AlanMarshall (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2023-04-29 19:23:43 +00:00

AlanMarshall (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Tested with ISO=Rocky-8.8-x86_64-dvd1.iso ARCH=x86_64 FLAVOR=dvd.iso TEST=base_update_cli
Result: Pass

Tested with ISO=Rocky-8.8-x86_64-dvd1.iso ARCH=x86_64 FLAVOR=dvd.iso TEST=base_update_cli Result: Pass

tcooper commented

2023-04-30 17:22:27 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I'd like to call a passing run in openQA, triggered via openqa-clone-custom-git-refspec semantic such as that demonstrated in 24557, the equivalent of a passing review and along with at least one eyes-on review to allow merge. This should allow us to increase the acceptance rate of PRs to the repo.

Any objections @StackKorora, @lumarel, @akatch or @AlanMarshall?

I'd like to call a passing run in openQA, triggered via `openqa-clone-custom-git-refspec` semantic such as that demonstrated in [24557](https://openqa.rockylinux.org/tests/24557#), the equivalent of a passing review and along with at least one eyes-on review to allow merge. This should allow us to increase the acceptance rate of PRs to the repo. Any objections @StackKorora, @lumarel, @akatch or @AlanMarshall?

lumarel commented

2023-04-30 17:24:14 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I'd like to call a passing run in openQA, triggered via openqa-clone-custom-git-refspec semantic such as that demonstrated in 24557, the equivalent of a passing review and along with at least one eyes-on review to allow merge. This should allow us to increase the acceptance rate of PRs to the repo.

Any objections @StackKorora, @lumarel, @akatch or @AlanMarshall?

Didn't run it myself, but did a visual check in the code and as you mentioned in the prod system.

> I'd like to call a passing run in openQA, triggered via `openqa-clone-custom-git-refspec` semantic such as that demonstrated in [24557](https://openqa.rockylinux.org/tests/24557#), the equivalent of a passing review and along with at least one eyes-on review to allow merge. This should allow us to increase the acceptance rate of PRs to the repo. > > Any objections @StackKorora, @lumarel, @akatch or @AlanMarshall? Didn't run it myself, but did a visual check in the code and as you mentioned in the prod system.

lumarel (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2023-04-30 17:24:32 +00:00

lumarel (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

So, looks good to me 👍🏻