On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 21:13 +0000, Fedora compose checker wrote:
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 4/102 (x86_64), 2/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20160923.n.0):
Since I didn't explain these yet...
ID: 35882 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35882
Seems like the 'getting started' screen still isn't appearing here, though it started working again on x86_64 (and works on the i386 live test). Haven't looked into why yet.
ID: 35883 Test: x86_64 Atomic-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35883
StillĀ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331864%C2%A0.
ID: 35896 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35896
Still initial-setup bugs.
ID: 35943 Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35943
This run actually hit a Mystery Anaconda Crash, but aside from that, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378156%C2%A0is still live.
ID: 35957 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35957
Looks like the same as the F25 upgrade fail, we just didn't wait long enough...I tweaked the timeouts from 90 to 120 seconds, should help.
ID: 35974 Test: x86_64 universal install_rescue_encrypted URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35974
This isĀ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376638%C2%A0.
ID: 35984 Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35984
Still https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333591 .
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/102 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
New soft failures (same test did not softfail in Rawhide-20160923.n.0):
ID: 35890 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35890
This is a new 'soft fail'. When this test 'soft fails' it indicates that the test had to authenticate for the package update to proceed, which usually means there were unsigned packages in the update. This has been normal for Rawhide up until now, but puiterwijk tells me that as of Monday Rawhide packages should be auto-signed(!!!), so I decided to make this case a 'soft fail', as in future this test should hopefully never run into an unsigned package. For now Rawhide does still have some unsigned packages, hence the soft fail.