On 2/4/20 06:20, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 3:48 PM pmkellly@xxxxxxxxxxxx <pmkellly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This proposal is for changes to Base test case: "QA:Testcase package
install remove" The existing test case is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_package_install_remove
Though there is a requirement to install packages, there are no commands
provided to accomplish this.
The process doesn't need to involve command. The purpose of the test case
is to test any package manager, including graphical ones. So for
Workstation, we test it with gnome-software. For KDE, we test it with both
graphical managers they have in there (because KDE). On Server, we test it
with dnf.
There are certainly advantages of being non-specific. You get several
package managers tested and likely with several ways of using the
package manager. I'm sure someone would install their favorite package
manager then run the test.
Also, there are no instructions concerning
things to look for during the installations.
If we specified the packages to install, we could test an RPM package
and a Modular package. I don't think dnf can handle Flatpacks.
Modularity has a separate list of test cases, see e.g. here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_32_Rawhide_20200131.n.0_Base#Modularity
Modularity is part of all of the Fedora composes; is it not? I'm curious
why these aren't in the Base cases. Though from what I've seen, there
aren't a lot of modules available yet. Is it just because modularity is
sort of just getting started. I admit modularity had been off my radar
until the Eclipse problem.
We have no test cases for flatpaks, at the moment.
Another one that's just getting started. Though I do have two flatpacks
as part of my standard "as deployed" configuration.
This test case uses the command line: (rpm -q package1 package2) This is
done twice; once to remove the packages and once to verify the removal.
I might be good to change the first one to: (dnf remove). Though we
could use this command again to verify the removal, it might be more
revealing to use (dnf info). The DNF info will show, among other things,
"Installed" or "Available".
If we want to test dnf, we need to verify the operation with something
else, not dnf itself. Rpm is the lowest tool we can use for verification.
Your point is well made. However, since we are letting the testers use
their package manager of choice, I would suggest we remove the rpm
commands and just instruct them to remove the packages they installed
and verify they have been removed.
There is one last point I was thinking of. Though I have never dug into
a package manager. I imagine they have some basic test to see that they
have installed a package. I'm not sure this is good enough to say that
the package actually got installed so that it would work. Perhaps it
would be worthwhile to specify one of the two packages (something
simple) so the test could also start the application just to see that it
would start.
As for removing packages, That's problematic. I know a lot depends on
the actual package being removed, but there is always trash left behind.
Sometimes other things get broken. As in one of the blocker bugs
yesterday. I'm thinking that the only practical test for package removal
is that the system still boots and isn't otherwise broken.
Now... This discussion is why I sent the email before just starting on a
draft of a modified test case.
Have a Great Day!
Pat (tablepc)
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
