Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adapt post_fail_hook to an incomplete openQA setup #149

Closed

Conversation

kalikiana
Copy link
Member

tests/install/openqa_webui.pm Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kalikiana kalikiana changed the title Make post_fail_hook a no-op installing the webUI Adapt post_fail_hook to an incomplete openQA setup Oct 24, 2023
@perlpunk
Copy link
Contributor

What I find strange is that the jobs triggered by the PR all are missing the install/* tests (and thus failing):

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ sub post_fail_hook {
if (check_var('OPENQA_FROM_GIT', 1)) {
send_key 'ctrl-c'; # Stop current command, if any
assert_script_run 'cd /root/openQA';
enter_cmd 'script/openqa-cli api jobs';
enter_cmd '[ -e script/openqa-cli ] && script/openqa-cli api jobs';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will help if the git clone failed, but not if the cpanm following that fails.
I guess it's really not that easy.
I'm wondering if there is a general way to make it more obvious that a test is in the post_fail_hook stage.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

well, we can just split each test module to be in more specific steps. Then for each module we can define more specific post_fail_hooks

@perlpunk
Copy link
Contributor

What I find strange is that the jobs triggered by the PR all are missing the install/* tests (and thus failing):

Still not sure but what I see is that https://github.com/kalikiana/os-autoinst-distri-openQA/tree/instl_webui_nofailhook says This branch is 1 commit ahead, 76 commits behind os-autoinst:master..
Maybe rebase?

@kalikiana kalikiana closed this Oct 25, 2023
@perlpunk
Copy link
Contributor

@kalikiana I would have still been interested in investigating the CI problems by a simple rebase. But I guess we will see in the next PR if it works or not.

@perlpunk
Copy link
Contributor

ok, #151 passed, so I assume the reason was that the branch here was based on such an old commit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants