Compare SUT package versions in investigation, if available

[marmarek]

In addition to showing diff of worker_packages.txt, include also a diff
of sut_packages.txt. Creating the file is up to the test, but do add it
to list of files uploaded at the job end.

Document how to use this feature. And while at it, document also
worker_packages.txt and PACKAGES_CMD setting.

[github-actions]

Great PR! Please pay attention to the following items before merging:

Files matching docs/*.asciidoc:

• Consider generating documentation locally to verify it is rendered correctly using tools/generate-docs

This is an automatically generated QA checklist based on modified files.

[marmarek]

With this, the sut_packages.txt file gets uploaded, but I don't see it listed in "Result files". I'm not sure if worker_packages.txt gets listed (never used this functionality). Is it expected? Or do I need to add it to some list somewhere?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.40%. Comparing base (049c328) to head (4d80c34).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #5643   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.40%   98.40%           
=======================================
  Files         393      393           
  Lines       38318    38319    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        37708    37709    +1     
  Misses        610      610           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Martchus]

With this, the sut_packages.txt file gets uploaded, but I don't see it listed in "Result files". I'm not sure if worker_packages.txt gets listed (never used this functionality). Is it expected? Or do I need to add it to some list somewhere?

I would have expected the file to show up there. You have already added it to the relevant list of files and I wouldn't know where to add it additionally.

We also won't seem to actually use worker_packages.txt in production. However, I have just executed sudo -u geekotest touch /var/lib/openqa/testresults/04201/04201194-openqa-Tumbleweed-dev-x86_64-Build\:TW.28542-openqa_from_bootstrap@64bit-2G/worker_packages.txt on one of our production hosts and the empty file now shows up on https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/4201194#downloads.

[marmarek]

I would have expected the file to show up there. You have already added it to the relevant list of files and I wouldn't know where to add it additionally.

I guess I was looking at not patched version, now it does show up.

And BTW, here is how the feature works:
https://openqa.qubes-os.org/tests/99850#investigation

[kalikiana]

Note some minor points on the phrasing. Otherwise looks good

[marmarek]

Note some minor points on the phrasing.

Thanks, updated.

[okurz]

This looks great! I wasn't considering that sut packages can be used just the same. You found a pretty clean way to do that without needing to have any SUT/OS specific implementations, great!

[marmarek]

Looks like codecov status isn't reported (that's why it didn't got merged yet)

[okurz]

yeah, codecov isn't always that stable. https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/os-autoinst/openQA/13581/workflows/cb0894d1-7d56-4d0c-a8e4-b5afac1b43c1/jobs/127466 shows an error regarding github rate limit although we use a token. Let's rebase with the help of mergify and give the CI pipeline another try

[okurz]

@Mergifyio rebase

[mergify]

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased