> The point here is that 'does the install succeed?' and 'does the > installed system boot?' are really separate test cases. Say you > install > an encrypted system, right? Say anaconda does everything just right, > but > there's a bug in dracut and you can't enter the passphrase on boot of > the installed system. > > That's really nothing to do with installation. It's not a bug in the > installer. It shouldn't be reported against anaconda. So it really > shouldn't be part of the 'installation' test case. This was the > reason > for splitting this 'startup' test case out on its own in the first > place > - to make the distinction between 'failure during install' and > 'failure > on boot' clearer. I'm not a fan of 'install' test cases that include > 'check the installed system boots'. > > I don't mind splitting it out further, at all, but I'm opposed to > just > saying 'oh, the install test case covers it', that's going backwards.
Actually I see it exactly the other way. I believe the expected result "the installed system initiates boot properly" should be part of _every_ installation test case. The reason is that you can't know whether the installation succeeded if you haven't tried to boot it. Anaconda could have reported success but failed to install grub, or something similar (happened just a few days ago). Or it could've messed up some files on /boot. If you don't check that it can enter grub and then load kernel+initrd and mount root filesystem, you can't really say the installation was successful. If we don't provide this instruction in our installation test cases, but rather provide a single "system boots" test case, then we might miss some important bugs where the system fails to be just in certain scenarios (certain installation types). People might perform 10 installation test cases and report success immediately after seeing anaconda "finish" screen, without letting it boot. And then test the system boot just _once_. That is far from ideal. Moreover, checking that system boot works is not a waste of time, it's very fast. I think what you want to see is a green color in an installation test case cell, and a red color in a boot test case cell, if there is a dracut bug, right? That would be nice, but that is not achievable, unless we replace the expected result "installation succeeded" with "anaconda reported success" (those are different things). Yes, in that case we can separate installation and boot. But I don't believe what anaconda says and I don't think we should, we should check it instead. Also I think the test case separation makes sense only when different release criteria milestones are mixed. If test case A is Alpha and test case B is Beta, and they are quite separate things, yes, two test cases. But if both are Alpha and they are very tightly related (testing one also tests the outcome of the second), why would we separate them? It violates Alpha and it can be a single red cell, no problem. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
