Test the become key under virtual provision

[carlosrodfern]

Increase test coverage for virtual for the become feature

Pull Request Checklist

• extend the test coverage

[lukaszachy]

@carlosrodfern Could you please read about the new way of provision testing implemented by #2558 and fix the test accordingly, please?
It's rendered as https://tmt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contribute.html#provision-methods

[carlosrodfern]

@carlosrodfern Could you please read about the new way of provision testing implemented by #2558 and fix the test accordingly, please? It's rendered as https://tmt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contribute.html#provision-methods

@lukaszachy , for what I understand from the docs, what I was missing was adding the corresponding provision tag. I pushed a fixed commit with the tag. Let me know if there is something else that I missed. Thank you!

[carlosrodfern]

@carlosrodfern Could you please read about the new way of provision testing implemented by #2558 and fix the test accordingly, please? It's rendered as https://tmt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contribute.html#provision-methods

@lukaszachy , for what I understand from the docs, what I was missing was adding the corresponding provision tag. I pushed a fixed commit with the tag. Let me know if there is something else that I missed. Thank you!

It looks like I may not need PROVISION_METHODS anymore with that tag, since the tests themselves don't test more than one provision method in the same script.

[lukaszachy]

@carlosrodfern Sorry, I should be more verbose. You are right. Main point is the tag (and the fact that one can ask CI to run it as well by /packit test --identifier full)

There are few more PR in play, and once they are done the 'PROVISION_METHODS' variable will be obsoleted by 'PROVISION_HOW'. But that is story of the future.

[carlosrodfern]

@carlosrodfern Sorry, I should be more verbose. You are right. Main point is the tag (and the fact that one can ask CI to run it as well by /packit test --identifier full)

There are few more PR in play, and once they are done the 'PROVISION_METHODS' variable will be obsoleted by 'PROVISION_HOW'. But that is story of the future.

Am I correct with this as well? I ended up removing PROVISION_METHODS:

It looks like I may not need PROVISION_METHODS anymore with that tag, since the tests themselves don't test more than one provision method in the same script.

[lukaszachy]

/packit test

[lukaszachy]

/packit test -i full

[lukaszachy]

/packit test -i provision

[lukaszachy]

/packit test -i provision

[lukaszachy]

/packit test

[lukaszachy]

/tests/provision/become/virtual fails with

libvirt: XML-RPC error : Failed to connect socket to '/var/run/libvirt/virtqemud-sock': No such file or directory
        fail: Failed to boot testcloud instance (Failed to connect socket to '/var/run/libvirt/virtqemud-sock': No such file or directory).
    finish

Do we have old testcloud on VM? AFAIK it should be now required by testcloud-0.9.10-2

EDIT: Hm, such testcloud and even libvirt-daemon are installed (https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/d7bc3591-a9e9-421a-a4ba-504d104ddb35/guest-setup-648e75e1-3b1b-4975-ab28-29f7a8af73ef/artifact-installation-648e75e1-3b1b-4975-ab28-29f7a8af73ef/4-Install-packages.txt)

[frantisekz]

/tests/provision/become/virtual fails with

libvirt: XML-RPC error : Failed to connect socket to '/var/run/libvirt/virtqemud-sock': No such file or directory
        fail: Failed to boot testcloud instance (Failed to connect socket to '/var/run/libvirt/virtqemud-sock': No such file or directory).
    finish

Do we have old testcloud on VM? AFAIK it should be now required by testcloud-0.9.10-2

EDIT: Hm, such testcloud and even libvirt-daemon are installed (https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/d7bc3591-a9e9-421a-a4ba-504d104ddb35/guest-setup-648e75e1-3b1b-4975-ab28-29f7a8af73ef/artifact-installation-648e75e1-3b1b-4975-ab28-29f7a8af73ef/4-Install-packages.txt)

Is libvirtd service up on the hosts? That should be enough to fix this.

[lukaszachy]

Is libvirtd service up on the hosts? That should be enough to fix this.

Who should be responsible for that? I'd say /plans/provision/virtual as we can't really expect each test to correctly setup testcloud, do can we?

[carlosrodfern]

Is libvirtd service up on the hosts? That should be enough to fix this.

Who should be responsible for that? I'd say /plans/provision/virtual as we can't really expect each test to correctly setup testcloud, do can we?

I pushed a commit with the rlServiceStart ensuring libvirtd is running. I found some tests doing something similar. It is in a separate commit so if a different approach is preferred I can remove it. We can at least see if that is enough of a fix to get it to work.

[psss]

Hm, this is strange. The plan should already take care of the libvirtd start:

tmt/plans/provision/virtual.fmf

Lines 22 to 25 in 93dc95f

	- name: start-libvirtd
	script: |
	sudo systemctl start libvirtd
	sudo systemctl status libvirtd

Let's rebase and try again if it was not some random hiccup.

[psss]

/packit test

[psss]

/packit test

[psss]

Thanks for the simplification, now looks much better! Proposing just a couple of minor indentation adjustments in 87a16bb.

[psss]

/packit test

[psss]

/packit test