[skip-ci] TMT: initial enablement #820

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

Draft

lsm5 wants to merge 1 commit into containers:main from lsm5:packit-tmt

Member

lsm5 commented Sep 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading

For local runs:
tmt run --all will by default spawn virtual machines for running each test.

tmt run --all provision --how local will run tests on the local machine.

The test run will echo the results dir at the very beginning. The actual results can be found in:
$TEST_RESULTS_DIR/plans/$TEST_NAME/execute/data/guest/default-0/script-00-1/output.txt

so for example:
/var/tmp/tmt/run-022/plans/validate_test/execute/data/guest/default-0/script-00-1/output.txt

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress label

Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 28, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lsm5

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [lsm5]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

openshift-ci bot added the approved label

lsm5 changed the title ~~TMT: add validate test~~ TMT: initial enablement

Member Author

lsm5 commented Sep 28, 2023

Feel free to ignore this PR until I ping you.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

Ephemeral COPR build failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch from 85dc30b to 95410fc Compare

September 28, 2023 19:27

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT integration tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT integration tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT integration tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

1 similar comment

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT integration tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT integration tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT validate test failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT integration tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

packit-as-a-service bot commented Sep 28, 2023

TMT unit tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch 7 times, most recently from 31bc099 to 436631e Compare

July 30, 2024 13:33

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch from 436631e to 0ad34bb Compare

August 1, 2024 19:10

mheon force-pushed the main branch from d5e44b5 to f13554b Compare

August 1, 2024 20:27

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch 2 times, most recently from b02370d to 92a4f0b Compare

October 31, 2024 14:32

Luap99 reviewed

View reviewed changes

Makefile Outdated

Comment on lines 125 to 132

    
              # The TEST_PLUGINS envvar is used by bats to specify path to test-plugins

              # directory

              ifdef TEST_PLUGINS

              $(info Skipping examples build as TEST_PLUGINS is set)

              integration: $(CARGO_TARGET_DIR)

              else

              integration: $(CARGO_TARGET_DIR) examples

              endif

Member

Luap99 Nov 1, 2024

Maybe we should just drop the examples dependency instead of making it more complicated. We do not depend on build either so it is not much different.

rpm/netavark.spec

    
              Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}

              %description tests

              %{summary}

Member

Luap99 Nov 1, 2024

We had this discussion recently about the podman RHEL rpm that this is not supported. So we should make sure if this ever gets top RHEL we do not ship it outside of the gating env if possible (i.e. follow whatever we decided to do with the podman rpm).

Outside of the bats test we do not support these examples either upstream. So maybe add the description here that these are test only binaries for gating and not recommended/supported for any other use.

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch 3 times, most recently from 30b1e5b to 6e98139 Compare

December 26, 2024 13:53

Member Author

lsm5 commented Dec 26, 2024

cs10 blocked on bridge-utils absence: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334212

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch 7 times, most recently from 0db8f31 to a588807 Compare

December 30, 2024 10:30

Member

Luap99 commented Jan 7, 2025

cs10 blocked on bridge-utils absence: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334212

@lsm5 FYI I don't think we need that package here since 71d8a5a

So just drop the dep.

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch from a588807 to 74f6afc Compare

February 11, 2025 11:02


          TMT: initial enablement

64ff7d0

This commit adds `validate`, `unit`, and `integration` tests using
for aarch64 and x86_64 arches on all active Fedora and CentOS Stream
versions.

Also includes podman revdep test contributed for c9s by
Yuhui Jiang <yujiang@redhat.com>.
Ref: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/netavark/-/merge_requests/59

Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@fedoraproject.org>

lsm5 force-pushed the packit-tmt branch from 74f6afc to 64ff7d0 Compare

February 11, 2025 11:11

Member Author

lsm5 commented Feb 11, 2025

/packit retest-failed

Member Author

lsm5 commented Feb 11, 2025

@Luap99 iptables tests are failing on F41+ and CS10. Should iptables be installed or these tests skipped?

Member

Luap99 commented Feb 11, 2025

@Luap99 iptables tests are failing on F41+ and CS10. Should iptables be installed or these tests skipped?

We should test all so we need to install them all but I think you are already doing that.

The main issue is that the rpm uses a different default then what a regular from source build does. So the test must be fixed to work regardless of what driver is sued as default.

Then there is a second issue AFAIK centos 10 dropped iptables support so the iptables tests cannot run there at all so we need to figure out how to skip only the iptables based tests there.

And then I see another firewald driver issue, I think @mheon firewalld code requires a relatively recent firewalld so they might have to be skipped on centos 9

So overall quite a few things to figure out

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved do-not-merge/work-in-progress