Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 17:32 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Il 18/11/24 16:34, Adam Williamson ha scritto: > > On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 11:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > If there is something that the policy text says that is stronger than > > > what Bodhi requires, then we

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Il 18/11/24 16:34, Adam Williamson ha scritto: > On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 11:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> If there is something that the policy text says that is stronger than >> what Bodhi requires, then we should update the policy text immediately. > As of now there is not, becaus

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 11:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > If there is something that the policy text says that is stronger than > what Bodhi requires, then we should update the policy text immediately. As of now there is not, because in 8.2 I made the tool to implement what the po

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 10:12:58AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 18:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document > > > the previous broken Bodhi policy implementation.

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document > the previous broken Bodhi policy implementation. (See > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/772 and > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1033 – both got closed, but > the is

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 19:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > The situation in the old code was actually rather more complicated, and > > weird, than "the non-settable threshold was fixed to the wrong value" - > > there were multiple check functions that applied diff

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 10:12 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > So on the whole, I think you have a good point here, thanks for raising > it. I will file a FESCo ticket and ask for them to consider the history > here and decide if they want to make any changes based on this > evaluation. Filed http

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Adam Williamson wrote: > The situation in the old code was actually rather more complicated, and > weird, than "the non-settable threshold was fixed to the wrong value" - > there were multiple check functions that applied different logic to > different operations, which is why you could sometimes p

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 18:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document > > the previous broken Bodhi policy implementation. (See > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/772 and > > https:

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > When was this decided? I only remember FESCo ever having decided to > require +2 for critpath updates, not for non-critpath ones. > > At some point, those values were written down in the documentation, but > under what authority? Where was the FESCo decision for tha

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Adam Williamson wrote: > specifically, for releases past the Beta freeze point, *all* updates > require +2 karma to be pushed stable before the minimum wait. That is, > if you want your non-critpath update to go stable sooner than 7 days > after it reached testing, it needs +2 karma. For critpath,

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 11:55:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > If folks believe allowing early push at +1 for non-critpath updates was > appropriate, then the appropriate thing to do would be to lobby FPC to > change the policy. I think Bodhi should always attempt to implement the >

Re: Bodhi update for mesa stuck waiting on test gating?

On Wed, 2024-06-26 at 14:06 -0400, Scott Talbert wrote: > Hi, > > Can someone please check this update for mesa? [1] > > If I'm reading the results correctly, it seems like it is waiting on > update.server_freeipa_replication_replica for 64bit server, but if you > click on that test, it shows t

Re: bodhi push error

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:12 AM Christoph Junghans wrote: > > Hi, > > Has anybody seen this error before: > FEDORA-2024-310c0537ac ejected from the push because "Cannot find > relevant tag for gromacs-2023.4-1.fc39. None of ['f39-updates', > 'f39-updates-pending'] are in ['epel9-next-testing', 'epe

Re: bodhi push error

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 9:12 PM Christoph Junghans wrote: > > Hi, > > Has anybody seen this error before: > FEDORA-2024-310c0537ac ejected from the push because "Cannot find > relevant tag for gromacs-2023.4-1.fc39. None of ['f39-updates', > 'f39-updates-pending'] are in ['epel9-next-testing', 'epe

Re: bodhi push error

On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 19:11 -0700, Christoph Junghans wrote: > Hi, > > Has anybody seen this error before: > FEDORA-2024-310c0537ac ejected from the push because "Cannot find > relevant tag for gromacs-2023.4-1.fc39. None of ['f39-updates', > 'f39-updates-pending'] are in ['epel9-next-testing', 'e

Re: Bodhi 8.0.2 deployed to prod

V Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:00:28PM +, Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a): > - There should be no more Updates ejected from the composes that remain > stuck in pending state due to wrong tags applied to their builds (or, > better, they should be automatically pushed again after 48 hours) > - The

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On 10/25/23 19:14, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Il 25/10/23 12:54, Tomas Hrcka ha scritto: This looks like a bug in bodhi. Actually, it was done that way on purpose. The HTML rendered output shows frozen releases in the same table of pending releases by a hack, but for API purposes I just let

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

Il 25/10/23 12:54, Tomas Hrcka ha scritto: > This looks like a bug in bodhi. > Actually, it was done that way on purpose. The HTML rendered output shows frozen releases in the same table of pending releases by a hack, but for API purposes I just let the output being pedantic about the requested

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On 10/25/23 15:17, Clement Verna wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Tomas Hrcka > wrote: This looks like a bug in bodhi. the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Březina mailto:pbrez...@redhat.com>> wr

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 3:17 PM Clement Verna wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Tomas Hrcka wrote: >> >> This looks like a bug in bodhi. >> >> the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Březina wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > Fedora 39 st

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > This looks like a bug in bodhi. > > the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Březina > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Fedora 39 stopped showing in pending releases (and is not in current > > eithe

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

This looks like a bug in bodhi. the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Březina wrote: > > Hi, > Fedora 39 stopped showing in pending releases (and is not in current > either) when using: > > curl https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/releases/?sta

Re: bodhi and testing farm disagrees on test result

On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 23:43 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Practically speaking, we should be able to just re-run the tests and it > should come out good. I'll bonk that button now. Ah, as the failure wasn't a gating one, Bodhi doesn't show the Re- Trigger Tests button. So I can't do it. Someo

Re: bodhi and testing farm disagrees on test result

On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 15:40 +0200, Dan Horák wrote: > Hi, > > seems there is an issue with the test results presented in bodhi, please > see https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-94f22746e1 > > bodhi thinks fedora-ci.koji-build.rpmdeplint.functional failed (it's > "red"), but when I

Re: Bodhi tests failing because of lack of dnf5 config-manager --set-disabled subcommand

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 3:59 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > eg: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b95ba15d84 > > Preparing the system for testing... > Ignoring "--fixrepo" option as it has no effect on Fedora profiles > Enabling buildroot repository... > Unknown argument "con

Re: bodhi tests missing

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:27:06PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Thanks, but no go: > > bodhi updates trigger-tests FEDORA-2023-96ebcd6f4d > Login successful! > Traceback (most recent call last): This may well be because those updates are in a updates push right now and the updates are locke

Re: bodhi tests missing

On 2/3/23 08:16, Petr Pisar wrote: V Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 07:40:09AM -0700, Orion Poplawski napsal(a): I've got a couple updates with missing tests: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-96ebcd6f4d https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-23e26fcc32 That happens when

Re: bodhi tests missing

V Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 07:40:09AM -0700, Orion Poplawski napsal(a): > I've got a couple updates with missing tests: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-96ebcd6f4d > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-23e26fcc32 > That happens when CI is slow or broken. Or when

Re: Bodhi 7.0.1 deployed to prod

On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 05:39 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Hello folks, > > I'd like to announce that Bodhi 7.0.1 has been deployed to production. > Apart from a webUI new look, due to the switch to fedora-bootstrap 2.x, > these are the main changes that may interest you: > > - Bodhi clie

Re: Bodhi 7.0.1 deployed to prod

Yay! Thank you! -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Mattia Verga Reply-To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Bodhi 7.0.1 deployed to prod Date: 17/01/23 16:39:49 - Frozen releases updates will now be forced into testing before being pushed

Re: bodhi upgraded to 7.0.1

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:05 PM Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > Il 17/01/23 12:54, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: > > > > Is it possible that bodhi no longer automatically recognizes the changelog > > of > > Rawhide updates? > > > > See before the update: > > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updat

Re: bodhi upgraded to 7.0.1

Il 17/01/23 12:54, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: > > Is it possible that bodhi no longer automatically recognizes the changelog of > Rawhide updates? > > See before the update: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9090058f62 > > And after: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/F

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On 17/01/2023 16:15, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 4:13 PM Richard Shaw wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:18 AM Arthur Bols wrote: On 17/01/2023 14:57, Stephen Smoogen wrote: So bodhi and pagure are at different datacenters with hopefully different network paths. Could people

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 4:13 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:18 AM Arthur Bols wrote: >> >> On 17/01/2023 14:57, Stephen Smoogen wrote: >> > So bodhi and pagure are at different datacenters with hopefully different >> > network paths. Could people do some mtr or traceroutes f

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:18 AM Arthur Bols wrote: > On 17/01/2023 14:57, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > So bodhi and pagure are at different datacenters with hopefully different > > network paths. Could people do some mtr or traceroutes from their > locations > > so we can see if this can be ironed

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:21 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 09:19, Arthur Bols wrote: > >> On 17/01/2023 14:57, Stephen Smoogen wrote: >> > So bodhi and pagure are at different datacenters with hopefully >> different >> > network paths. Could people do some mtr or tracero

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 09:19, Arthur Bols wrote: > On 17/01/2023 14:57, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > So bodhi and pagure are at different datacenters with hopefully different > > network paths. Could people do some mtr or traceroutes from their > locations > > so we can see if this can be ironed ou

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On 17/01/2023 14:57, Stephen Smoogen wrote: So bodhi and pagure are at different datacenters with hopefully different network paths. Could people do some mtr or traceroutes from their locations so we can see if this can be ironed out. Currently the limited tools we have in Fedora Infra for checki

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:58 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 08:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:49:48AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:42 AM Petr Pisar wrote: >> > >> > > V Tue, Jan 17,

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 08:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:49:48AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:42 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > > V Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:28:32AM -0600, Richard Shaw napsal(a): > > > > Is anyone but me experiencing

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:49:48AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:42 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > > V Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:28:32AM -0600, Richard Shaw napsal(a): > > > Is anyone but me experiencing this? I want to know before I call C Spire. > > > > > Since yesterday I rand

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:42 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > V Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:28:32AM -0600, Richard Shaw napsal(a): > > Is anyone but me experiencing this? I want to know before I call C Spire. > > > Since yesterday I randomly experience long delays between sending a query > and > receiving the

Re: Bodhi slow with 504 gateway timeouts

V Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:28:32AM -0600, Richard Shaw napsal(a): > Is anyone but me experiencing this? I want to know before I call C Spire. > Since yesterday I randomly experience long delays between sending a query and receiving the response. However, no HTTP errors. -- Petr signature.asc Des

Re: bodhi upgraded to 7.0.1

On 17. 01. 23 1:07, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Hey folks, just a heads up that bodhi has been updated to 7.0.1 now. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org See: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/releases for a full list of bugs fixed/enhancements. Note that this adds the concept of 'frozen' releases, whic

Re: bodhi-server tests started to fail when building package in Koji

Il 07/01/23 09:31, Mattia Verga ha scritto: > I've attempted to build an updated bodhi-server release for testing it > into staging, just a few more commits which fixes some glitches in the > web UI. However, running the tests in Koji fail both on F36 and F37: > > E   subprocess.CalledP

Re: bodhi update in a crazy state

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:38:49AM +0200, Mikel Olasagasti wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Can you try to unpush from testing and then re-push? > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JF2PBQCZOL6MTWQUXEV3GJ7REGL2ITL3/ Thanks for that pointer. I just unpu

Re: bodhi update in a crazy state

Hi Richard, Can you try to unpush from testing and then re-push? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JF2PBQCZOL6MTWQUXEV3GJ7REGL2ITL3/ Kind regards, Mikel Hau idatzi du Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) erabiltzaileak (2022 mai. 12, og. (09:3

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:54 PM Aurelien Bompard wrote: > > Hey Fabio! > > > However, testing the fallback to OpenID, it does > > not work for me with bodhi.stg.fedoraproject.org > > Trying to access this login URL, I'm getting HTTP 500 / Internal > > Server Error responses from > > https://bodh

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

Hey Fabio! > However, testing the fallback to OpenID, it does > not work for me with bodhi.stg.fedoraproject.org > Trying to access this login URL, I'm getting HTTP 500 / Internal > Server Error responses from > https://bodhi.stg.fedoraproject.org/dologin.html?openid=https%3A%2F%2Fid > which

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:38 PM Aurelien Bompard wrote: > > Hey everyone! > > Bodhi 6.0 will be published in a few days, and deployed to production a > couple weeks after the Fedora release. It has backwards-incompatible changes, > here's what you need to know. > > == Authentication == > Bodhi g

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

Dne 06. 04. 22 v 14:31 Aurelien Bompard napsal(a): * For other Fedora systems, we use Kerberos authentication, are there some plans to add it? Nope, there's no plan for that at the moment. FYI We recently added the Kerberos support to Copr cli. You can steal the code here: https://pagure.io

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

> * What is the expiration period? Or, can we set the expiration date ourselves? What expiration do you mean? The buildroot override setting that save_override() gives access to is really unrelated to authentication and you probably don't need it if you didn't need it before. If you mean when Op

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

> I wonder if kerberos going to be supported or not? Not at this time. Aurélien ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproj

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

Thank you for your quick answer Aurélien! I hope this workflow can work for us. Maybe a few related questions (sorry if it is documented somewhere, any link is welcome): * What is the expiration period? Or, can we set the expiration date ourselves? * Can we use multiple tokens in parallel to ease

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

I wonder if kerberos going to be supported or not? Vít Dne 06. 04. 22 v 12:37 Aurelien Bompard napsal(a): Hey everyone! Bodhi 6.0 will be published in a few days, and deployed to production a couple weeks after the Fedora release. It has backwards-incompatible changes, here's what you nee

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

Hey Frantisek! Excellent questions! > * Our users can use Packit via CLI and use their identity for Bodhi > connections. With this, it's not nice, but doable to open a web-browser. (Not > sure how this works in the containerised use-cases.) The Bodhi CLI will display a URL that you'll have to

Re: Bodhi 6.0: What's new

Hi Aurélien! thanks for the hard work on the new Bodhi release! I have a question on the non-interactive way of Bodhi authentication. I understand that supporting OpenID is hard, but are there some other options to support this workflow in the future? A little bit of context: * We, as a Packit t

Re: Bodhi and "update ejected from the push" errors

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:31:15PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sat, 2022-01-29 at 11:12 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 05:38:42PM +, Mattia Verga via devel > > wrote: > > > Recently we're having some (a lot) of errors about updates stuck in > > > Bodhi with errors lik

Re: Bodhi and "update ejected from the push" errors

On Sat, 2022-01-29 at 11:12 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 05:38:42PM +, Mattia Verga via devel > wrote: > > Recently we're having some (a lot) of errors about updates stuck in > > Bodhi with errors like "update ejected from the push because Cannot > > find > > relevant tag

Re: Bodhi and "update ejected from the push" errors

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 05:38:42PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Recently we're having some (a lot) of errors about updates stuck in > Bodhi with errors like "update ejected from the push because Cannot find > relevant tag...". > > I tried to fix some of them myself, and relengs folks are

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 08:26 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > You reported my complaints as: > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4219. Thanks! > > I'm going to go ahead and ask that the gating be turned off until it's > fixed. If it doesn't display accurate test results, it's not even

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Fabio Valentini wrote: > This sounds like you didn't read my whole post. > Because I don't want to make updates going from "pending -> stable" > directly impossible, Well, several of the people who replied do want that, if I understand their replies correctly. I think your original proposal that

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 3:08 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow > > currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" > > (still in "pending → testing" state) so that it can be pushed

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Fabio Valentini wrote: > There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow > currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" > (still in "pending → testing" state) so that it can be pushed to > stable, bodhi changes its state to ("pending → stable"), making it

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Hi Fabio, Fabio Valentini writes: > So, I wonder, should updates always be allowed to skip being in the > "updates-testing" repository entirely? There's probably good reasons > for it sometimes (for example, time-critical security updates, i.e. > firefox, kernel, etc.), but in the general case,

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:49 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 12. 10. 21 10:35, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow > > currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" > > (still in "pending → testin

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Understood. Filed a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013168#c1. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:48 AM Artem Tim wrote: > > Noticed this a long time ago when in freeze stage and this could a serious > issue sometimes. BTW please push flatpak 1.12.1 update to Stable manually > since people still complain and stuck with 1.12.0. This is not a place to request random

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On 12. 10. 21 10:35, Fabio Valentini wrote: Hi everybody, There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" (still in "pending → testing" state) so that it can be pushed to stable, bodhi changes its state to ("

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Noticed this a long time ago when in freeze stage and this could a serious issue sometimes. BTW please push flatpak 1.12.1 update to Stable manually since people still complain and stuck with 1.12.0. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o

Re: Bodhi login error

On 8/17/21 2:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:59:38AM -0400, John Florian wrote: I'm trying to report success on https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ec4a4b2634 but cannot login.  When I attempt to do so, the page shows: 500 Internal Server Error Could not con

Re: Bodhi login error

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:59:38AM -0400, John Florian wrote: > I'm trying to report success on > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ec4a4b2634 but cannot > login.  When I attempt to do so, the page shows: > > 500 Internal Server Error > Could not convert return value of the view

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Thu, 2021-05-20 at 08:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:15:18AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:39 PM Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > > > > the drawback of that is we have to remember to manually update that > > > list of versions each time a rel

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:15:18AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:39 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > the drawback of that is we have to remember to manually update that > > list of versions each time a release branches. Which will inevitably > > get forgotten sometime. Th

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:39 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > the drawback of that is we have to remember to manually update that > list of versions each time a release branches. Which will inevitably > get forgotten sometime. That's why I wanted to use the wildcards. But > it's the best option I can

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

  19.05.2021, 23:37, "Adam Williamson" :On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 15:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:  2. How can we best sensibly tweak things so we don't gate on Rawhide updates that *do* get marked as critpath?  I'm going to think about #2 now.So all the clever ways I can think of to do this for now

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 15:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > 2. How can we best sensibly tweak things so we don't gate on Rawhide > updates that *do* get marked as critpath? > > I'm going to think about #2 now. So all the clever ways I can think of to do this for now kinda suck, so I went with

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 15:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 14:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 22:54 +0100, Pete Walter wrote: > > > I waited over an hour on openQA test results that never came. Ended > > > up waiving > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproje

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

  19.05.2021, 22:59, "Adam Williamson" :On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 22:54 +0100, Pete Walter wrote: I waited over an hour on openQA test results that never came. Ended up waiving https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8cdffadc43. After a bunch of searching I found https://openqa.fedoraprojec

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 14:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 22:54 +0100, Pete Walter wrote: > > I waited over an hour on openQA test results that never came. Ended > > up waiving > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8cdffadc43. After > > a bunch of searchin

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Wed, 2021-05-19 at 22:54 +0100, Pete Walter wrote: > I waited over an hour on openQA test results that never came. Ended > up waiving > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8cdffadc43. After > a bunch of searching I found https://openqa.fedoraproject.org but > there was no indica

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

I waited over an hour on openQA test results that never came. Ended up waiving https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8cdffadc43. After a bunch of searching I found https://openqa.fedoraproject.org but there was no indication that it had even started running the tests for this update. 

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

V Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:55:31AM -0500, Justin Forbes napsal(a): > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:38:29AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 08:26 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > You reported my complaints as: > > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4219. Thanks!

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 10:55 -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:38:29AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 08:26 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > You reported my complaints as: > > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4219. Thanks! > > > >

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:38:29AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 08:26 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > You reported my complaints as: > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4219. Thanks! > > > > I'm going to go ahead and ask that the gating be turned off unti

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 08:26 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > You reported my complaints as: > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4219. Thanks! > > I'm going to go ahead and ask that the gating be turned off until it's > fixed. If it doesn't display accurate test results, it's not even

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

You reported my complaints as: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4219. Thanks! I'm going to go ahead and ask that the gating be turned off until it's fixed. If it doesn't display accurate test results, it's not even close to being ready yet. Good gating is good, but bad gating is

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 18:20 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, May 14 2021 at 02:17:13 PM -0700, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > I don't know about emails, but the UI isn't indicating a failure, it's > > indicating a missing result. This *is* what it shows if you read it > > carefully. It doe

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Fri, May 14 2021 at 02:17:13 PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: I don't know about emails, but the UI isn't indicating a failure, it's indicating a missing result. This *is* what it shows if you read it carefully. It doesn't say a test failed. That's incorrect, see e.g.: https://bodhi.fedo

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 14:40 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > So this seems like a good idea, but I notice that all tests are marked > as failed until the results arrive. This leads to incorrect failure > emails and incorrect UI indicating lots of test failures where none > exist. Doesn't seem r

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

So this seems like a good idea, but I notice that all tests are marked as failed until the results arrive. This leads to incorrect failure emails and incorrect UI indicating lots of test failures where none exist. Doesn't seem ready for production yet. ___

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 16:28 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > I've just realized that this currently doesn't work: Rawhide updates still > aren't marked as critpath. > > See https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4177#issuecomment-841350366 Oh, that's fine. This is only for stable and

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

I've just realized that this currently doesn't work: Rawhide updates still aren't marked as critpath. See https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4177#issuecomment-841350366 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe sen

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 23:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 06:06 +0200, Michal Srb wrote: > > > > I thought, under the hood, the button is just telling Bodhi to send the > > "bodhi.update.status.testing.koji-build-group.build.complete" [1] message > > again, so all CI system

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 06:06 +0200, Michal Srb wrote: > > I thought, under the hood, the button is just telling Bodhi to send the > "bodhi.update.status.testing.koji-build-group.build.complete" [1] message > again, so all CI systems listening should trigger? This isn't the case for > openQA? > > T

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

Hello, On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:19 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 19:29 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > > Hey folks! > > > > > > Just wanted to flag up that, now the new Bodhi version has been > > > deployed to production, critpath updates are gated on openQA test >

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 19:29 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > Hey folks! > > > > Just wanted to flag up that, now the new Bodhi version has been > > deployed to production, critpath updates are gated on openQA test > > results. If any openQA test for your critpath update failed, the > > gat

Re: Bodhi critpath package updates now gated on openQA results

> Hey folks! > > Just wanted to flag up that, now the new Bodhi version has been > deployed to production, critpath updates are gated on openQA test > results. If any openQA test for your critpath update failed, the gating > status will be marked as 'failed' and you will not be able to push it > s

Re: Bodhi client prompting for a password

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:15:53AM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:31 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > On 03. 03. 21 21:08, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > I want to run this command: > > > > > > > >bodhi updates trigger-tests FEDORA-2021-279

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >