> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_QA_Compendium_image_validation_results_template#Boot_and_sub-image_selection > > so 'multi_auto' would just be 'leave it, and check it does the right > thing', 'multi_manual' would be a test case that's something like > 'try > every entry besides basic video / memtest / local boot and make sure > they respond appropriately', and the other three are obvious - we > probably don't really need to do those three on both arches, we could > split out a small table for those, I guess. This table is pretty neat. One thing though: I find "Multi-Live" and "Multi-DVD" names more straightforward than "Multi-Desktop" and "Multi-Install" (this one takes me a while to decipher). But that might be my personal feeling only. > > The multi_sub_boot test now becomes redundant, Yes, that's not needed now. > and I suppose we could > move sub_install up into this new big table; we can probably get away > without testing install of every DE, since they all use anaconda. > The case I can see where install might break on the compendium images is > the > case where anaconda, for whatever reason, examines the actual medium > it's booting from. It _does_ do this, in some cases - like it tries > to > except the USB stick it's booting from (if it is) from the target > device > list. (This test may well not work on the compendium images, > actually). > I can possibly imagine a case where anaconda goes to look what image > it's booting from, and gets confused if it's the compendium disc. But > that shouldn't vary between desktops. I see it the same way. That means multi_sub_install (or maybe just multi_install now) can be merged into the previous table. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
