Add qvm-template-upgrade-integtration tests - #875
Conversation
ef0af26 to
b35c376
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #875 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 70.72% 70.70% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 61 61
Lines 14315 14315
==========================================
- Hits 10124 10121 -3
- Misses 4191 4194 +3
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
openQArun PR_LABEL=openqa-group-1 TEST=system_tests_network_updates |
OpenQA test summaryComplete test suite and dependencies: https://openqa.qubes-os.org/tests/overview?distri=qubesos&version=4.3&build=2026083119-devel&flavor=pull-requests Test run included the following:
New failures, excluding unstableCompared to: https://openqa.qubes-os.org/tests/overview?distri=qubesos&version=4.3&build=2026050504-devel&flavor=update Failed testsNo failures! Fixed failuresCompared to: https://openqa.qubes-os.org/tests/176874#dependencies Unstable testsDetails
Performance TestsPerformance degradation:No issues Remaining performance tests:No remaining performance tests |
|
The final test didn't run, because |
| source.features.update(tpl.features) | ||
| self.loop.run_until_complete(source.clone_disk_files(tpl)) | ||
| else: | ||
| self.loop.run_until_complete(source.create_on_disk()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This, for Standalone, will create an empty qube. Is that intentional? While there are tests below that don't care really, this function could be simpler if it has only the with_disk=True case (unless I'm missing some actual usage).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, with_disk=False was intentional for the CLI validation tests to skip the disk clone overhead since those tests only check dom0 argument validation and never boot the VM.
Should I remove it and always clone?
Both tests failed, but it might be expected. For Debian, it complains about missing codename for 14 (forky): I'm not sure when new codename is added there, but it is still testing at this point. For Fedora: Is it also because Fedora 45 isn't released yet? But here, I'm not sure where 999 came from, Fedora rawhide seems to report version 46 now, so not there... |
|
I retried it with Debian 12 and Fedora 43. Debian worked, but Fedora failed: And the log says: |
|
Fedora 43 -> 44 |
Related: QubesOS/qubes-core-admin-linux#213