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

Add extended test for installonly packages #1611

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 13, 2024

Conversation

glum23
Copy link
Contributor

@glum23 glum23 commented Dec 12, 2024

Upstream commit: b2a97d2

The original test is ok, but this test is for a random behavior of the code, therefore it uses more additional packages in test to triger random behavior.

Backport notes: "dnf5 transaction items for transaction" steps removed bacause its specific to dnf5.

Required for: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-15902

Upstream commit: b2a97d2

The original test is ok, but this test is for a random behavior of the code,
therefore it uses more additional packages in test to triger random behavior.

Backport notes: "dnf5 transaction items for transaction" steps removed
bacause its specific to dnf5.

Required for: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-15902
@glum23
Copy link
Contributor Author

glum23 commented Dec 12, 2024

installonly.feature has been run manually for dnf-4.20.0-9.el10, passed
It's not expected to pass for fedora (see not successful checks).

@ppisar ppisar self-assigned this Dec 12, 2024
@ppisar
Copy link
Contributor

ppisar commented Dec 12, 2024

The removed "dnf5 transaction items for transaction" steps are not specific to dnf5. They are present in dnf-4-stack branch, they pass with upstream DNF4 as well as in RHEL 10.0. Those missing steps are:

--- a/dnf-behave-tests/dnf/installonly.feature
+++ b/dnf-behave-tests/dnf/installonly.feature
@@ -310,9 +310,6 @@ Scenario: Do not remove or change reason after remove of one of installonly pack
         | kernel-core-4.18.16-300.fc29.x86_64    | user            |
         | kernel-core-4.19.15-300.fc29.x86_64    | user            |
         | wget-1.19.5-5.fc29.x86_64              | dependency      |
-    And dnf5 transaction items for transaction "last" are
-        | action  | package                               | reason | repository            |
-        | Install | kernel-core-0:4.19.15-300.fc29.x86_64 | User   | dnf-ci-fedora-updates |
    When I execute dnf with args "remove kernel-core-0:4.19.15-300.fc29.x86_64"
    Then the exit code is 0
     And Transaction is following
@@ -325,9 +322,6 @@ Scenario: Do not remove or change reason after remove of one of installonly pack
         |  flac-1.3.2-8.fc29.x86_64               | weak-dependency |
         |  kernel-core-4.18.16-300.fc29.x86_64    | user            |
         |  wget-1.19.5-5.fc29.x86_64              | dependency      |
-    And dnf5 transaction items for transaction "last" are
-        | action  | package                               | reason | repository |
-        | Remove  | kernel-core-0:4.19.15-300.fc29.x86_64 | User   | @System    |
 
 # TODO(jkolarik): autoremove not yet available in dnf5
 # @dnf5

I cannot see a reason why to remove them.

@kontura
Copy link
Contributor

kontura commented Dec 13, 2024

The removed "dnf5 transaction items for transaction" steps are not specific to dnf5. They are present in dnf-4-stack branch, they pass with upstream DNF4 as well as in RHEL 10.0.

They are present and they do pass but they don't actually do anything: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/ci-dnf-stack/blob/rhel-10.0/dnf-behave-tests/dnf/steps/history.py#L169-L171 so I would say they are specific to dnf5.

Personally I think they are just confusing here and I am in favor of removing them.

@ppisar
Copy link
Contributor

ppisar commented Dec 13, 2024

Then we should remove them from dnf-4-stack branch.

@ppisar ppisar merged commit f40e697 into rpm-software-management:rhel-10.0 Dec 13, 2024
1 of 3 checks passed
@glum23 glum23 deleted the work-rhel-10 branch December 17, 2024 12:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants