Commit graph

7 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Adam Williamson
e68e113f76 Remove test_flags comments, add ignore_failure flag
It's not really a good idea to have the comments that explain
the test_flags in *every* test, because they can go stale and
then we either have to live with them being old or update them
all. Like, now. So let's just take 'em all out. There's always
a reference in the openQA and os-autoinst docs, and those get
updated faster.

More importantly, add the new `ignore_failure` flag to relevant
tests - all the tests that don't have the 'important' or
'fatal' flag at present. Upstream killed the 'important' flag
(making all tests 'important' by default), I got it replaced
with the 'ignore_failure' flag, we now need to explicitly mark
all modules we want the 'ignore_failure' behaviour for.
2017-04-10 15:00:10 -07:00
Adam Williamson
b67f604894 Move all remaining utility functions into exporter modules
Summary:
This adds a couple of new exporter modules, renames main_common
to utils (this is a better name: openSUSE's main_common is
functions used in main.pm, utils is what they call their module
full of miscellaneous commonly-used functions), and moves a
bunch of utility functions that were previously needlessly
implemented as instance methods in base classes into the
exporter modules. That means we can get rid of all the annoying
$self-> syntax for calling them.

We get rid of `fedorabase` entirely, as it's no longer useful
for anything. Other base classes keep the 'standard' methods
(like `post_fail_hook`) and methods which actually need to be
methods (like `root_console`, whose behaviour is different in
anacondatest and installedtest).

Test Plan:
Do a full test suite run and check everything lines
up. There should be no functional differences from before at all,
this is just a re-org.

Reviewers: jskladan, garretraziel_but_actually_jsedlak_who_uses_stupid_nicknames

Reviewed By: garretraziel_but_actually_jsedlak_who_uses_stupid_nicknames

Subscribers: tflink

Differential Revision: https://phab.qa.fedoraproject.org/D1080
2017-01-17 23:15:44 -08:00
Adam Williamson
dcb68d93c8 drop our implementation of script_run in favour of os-autoinst
Summary:
os-autoinst implements `script_run` itself now, we aren't
required to implement it ourselves any more. os-autoinst's
implementation is better than ours, as it allows for verifying
the script actually ran (via the redirect-output-to-serial-
console trick).

So this drops our implementation so we'll just use the upstream
one. Where I judged we don't want to bother with the 'check
the command actually ran' feature I've adjusted our direct
`script_run` calls to pass a wait time of 0, which skips the
'wait for command to run' stuff entirely and just does a simple
'type the string and hit enter'.

Because of how the inheritance works, our `assert_script_run`
calls already used the os-autoinst `script_run`, rather than
the one from our distribution.

This should prevent `prepare_test_packages` sometimes going
wrong right after removing the python3-kickstart package, as
we'll properly wait for that removal to complete now (before
we weren't, we'd just start typing the next command while it
was still running, which could result in lost keypresses).

Test Plan:
Check all tests still run OK (I've tried this on
staging and it seems fine).

Reviewers: jskladan, garretraziel

Reviewed By: garretraziel

Subscribers: tflink

Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D1034
2016-10-20 09:24:48 -07:00
Adam Williamson
e9ce14a891 consolidate login waits, use postinstall not entrypoint for base
Summary:
I started out wanting to fix an issue I noticed today where
graphical upgrade tests were failing because they didn't wait
for the graphical login screen properly; the test was sitting
at the 'full Fedora logo' state of plymouth for a long time,
so the current boot_to_login_screen's wait_still_screen was
triggered by it and the function wound up failing on the
assert_screen, because it was still some time before the real
login screen appeared.

So I tweaked the boot_to_login_screen implementation to work
slightly differently (look for a login screen match, *then* -
if we're dealing with a graphical login - wait_still_screen
to defeat the 'old GPU buffer showing login screen' problem
and assert the login screen again). But while working on it,
I figured we really should consolidate all the various places
that handle the bootloader -> login, we were doing it quite
differently in all sorts of different places. And as part of
that, I converted the base tests to use POSTINSTALL (and thus
go through the shared _wait_login tests) instead of handling
boot themselves. As part of *that*, I tweaked main.pm to not
require all POSTINSTALL tests have the _postinstall suffix on
their names, as it really doesn't make sense, and renamed the
tests.

Test Plan: Run all tests, see if they work.

Reviewers: jskladan, garretraziel

Reviewed By: garretraziel

Subscribers: tflink

Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D1015
2016-09-27 11:48:15 -07:00
Adam Williamson
63e03ecbdf add base_service_manipulation test
Summary:
Not much to say, pretty much just implements the test case using
some commands I dug up that give us handy 0/1 exit statuses.
The assert_script_run function (from testapi) simply runs a
command/script and passes or fails based on the exit status;
we use a handy bash-ism when we *want* the exit status to be 1.

Test Plan: Run the test and check that it passes (properly).

Reviewers: jskladan, garretraziel

Reviewed By: garretraziel

Subscribers: tflink

Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D713
2016-01-11 12:30:24 -08:00
Adam Williamson
feac11d4d2 drop mistakenly added service manipulation test
I messed up the last commit and mistakenly included this test,
which I've been working on and is not yet reviewed. The commit
was only supposed to add base_services_start. I'll send a new
diff for service_manipulation.
2016-01-08 15:03:18 -08:00
Adam Williamson
242d2ca165 add a base_services_start test
Summary:
pretty simple, just make sure no services failed to start. We
may run into the rngd issue here, not sure, let's land it and
see!

Test Plan:
I guess run the test and see what happens? I haven't
actually tested this myself yet, so, yeah.

Reviewers: garretraziel, jskladan

Reviewed By: garretraziel, jskladan

Subscribers: tflink

Differential Revision: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D710
2016-01-08 09:01:33 -08:00