Re: [Fedora QA] #173: Obsoleting the tests for verifying http/nfs/ftp/hard disk install sources

["Fedora QA" <trac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#173: Obsoleting the tests for verifying http/nfs/ftp/hard disk install sources
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  rhe          |       Owner:  rhe      
      Type:  enhancement  |      Status:  new      
  Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  Fedora 15
 Component:  Wiki         |     Version:           
Resolution:               |    Keywords:           
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by jlaska):

 I like your idea of creating/renaming tests to be ''Installation
 repository''.  In addition to that, some test rewording may be required.
 I think all the same installation sources are still supported, but the
 phrasing, and the procedure, has changed slightly.

 An attempt to identify the methods for testing the different
 ''Installation repository'' scenarios.  This doesn't include the
 ''Additional repository'' tests.  As you noted, those may need to be run
 also :(

 {{{
 #!html

 <table border="1">
   <tr>
     <th>Installation Repository
     <th>Boot media used
     <th>Default test scenario
     <th>Additional test variations
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>DVD
     <td>DVD.iso
     <td>Boot DVD with no additional arguments
     <td> <ul>
        <li>askmethod, and select CDROM/DVD
        <li>repo=cdrom
        <li>repo=cdrom:/dev/sr0 </ul>
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>Mirrorlist
     <td>netinst.iso or pxeboot
     <td>Boot netinst.iso with no additional arguments
     <td> &nbsp;
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>HTTP/FTP
     <td>netinst.iso, pxeboot or DVD
     <td>Boot netinst.iso with ''askmethod'', select URL
     <td> <ul>
        <li>repo=http://host/path
        <li>repo=https://host/path
        <li>proxy=[protocol://][username[:password]@]host[:port]
        </ul>
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>NFS
     <td>netinst.iso, pxeboot or DVD
     <td>Boot with ''askmethod'', select NFS
     <td> <ul>
        <li>repo=nfs:server:path
        </ul>
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>NFS ISO
     <td>netinst.iso, pxeboot or DVD
     <td>Boot with ''askmethod'', select NFS
     <td> <ul>
        <li>repo=nfs[:options]:server:path
        <li>repo=nfsiso[:options]:server:path
        </ul>
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>HD ISO
     <td>netinst.iso, pxeboot or DVD
     <td>Boot with ''askmethod'', select ''Hard drive''
     <td> <ul>
        <li>repo=hd:device:/path
        <li>repo=hd:LABEL=:/path
        <li>repo=hd:UUID=:/path
        </ul>
   </tr>
 </table>

 }}}

 What do you think about the idea of including additional variations inside
 a test case.  My thought here is that the test could still pass using the
 default test scenario, but would result in a warning if any of the
 optional test variations fail.  Is this confusing, should we just create
 distinct test cases for each of the optional test variations?  I was
 hoping to avoid that, but not if it's too confusing.

 > Can you clarify this? do you mean ftp can be a option in http test
 cases?

 Yeah, since pycurl is used now for HTTP and FTP, I'm wondering if we need
 to explicitly call out FTP in our tests.  Should we leave that as a
 variation?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/173#comment:3>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test