Fix misleading error message on non-UEFI jobs

[okurz]

Related progress issue: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/42329

[okurz]

@richiejp do you think this is the right approach?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1825 into master will increase coverage by 0.1%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #1825     +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   90.18%   90.28%   +0.1%     
=========================================
  Files         139      139             
  Lines        9982     9983      +1     
=========================================
+ Hits         9002     9013     +11     
+ Misses        980      970     -10

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/OpenQA/Worker/Engines/isotovideo.pm	95.62% <100%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
lib/OpenQA/WebSockets/Server.pm	92.2% <0%> (+1.83%)	⬆️
lib/OpenQA/Scheduler/Scheduler.pm	88.58% <0%> (+2.28%)	⬆️
lib/OpenQA.pm	71.79% <0%> (+2.56%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3d1e3f3...876afa2. Read the comment docs.

[okurz]

hm, could it be there is a big coverage drop reported because I did not rebase my openQA working copy?

[okurz]

Seems like it

[richiejp]

Well, it is either this or change it to a warning instead of an error if it is UEFI flash that is missing.

[okurz]

hm, I don't understand how the warning would help or what it actually warns about when the asset is not expected on non-UEFI jobs.

[ggardet]

Why do you check the UEFI var set to 0? In my case (aarch64) UEFI is set to 1.
See: https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/771579#settings

[okurz]

Yes, because the presence of the asset is only required on UEFI, not otherwise. Mentioning this PR to you in the ticket was a mistake by me because aarch64 is always UEFI in this case.