I work with AD integration in "real" life and can do such tests, did not notice request in time though, but can contribute on that front.  Automating the test is of course better and is not so dependent on a specific person being available.

Jan Kuparinen
fas: copperi
(I work with several SIGs, among others QA and Server)

From: Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:09 PM
To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases <test@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject: Re: Spreading test responsibilities to other teams
 
On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 15:57 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Hi friends,
>
> I was a little concerned that we were running some tests during the
> Go/No-Go last week, especially considering it seemed like we had most
> of the blockers wrapped up well ahead of when we normally do. Part of
> the answer, in my opinion, is to lean on some of the SIGs/WGs to take
> a more active role in the testing process for RCs and the period
> leading up to RCs.
>
> In particular, I'd like to see the Server WG taking care of the Active
> Directory tests (which is a non-trivial thing to remove our dependence
> on sgallagh's setup, admittedly) and the Cloud SIG taking care of many
> of those tests. The fact that we didn't have any AWS AMIs uploaded
> until after the meeting started suggests there's a gap in our process.
> And of course, pwhalen and coremodule could always use more support in
> running ARM tests.
>
> This isn't a criticism of the QA team, because y'all do a tremendous
> job. And I don't want to suggest that _all_ of the testing be pushed
> out onto other teams. But I'd like to start a conversation on how we
> can spread the responsibility out more. This should hopefully make
> everyone's life a little easier and make our Go/No-Go meetings more
> efficient to boot.
>
> Thoughts?

I think what we had there is really two specific issues, rather than a
more general responsibility issue.

It's worth noting that sgallagh doing the AD tests is *already* a case
of a SIG/WG doing its own testing, because sgallagh does that with a
"Server WG" hat on, not a "QA" hat. The issue there is more that a)
Stephen is the only one with a setup for doing the tests, and b) doing
them is a pain and Stephen's busy so he often doesn't get around to it
until I ping him directly.

The fix there is really more "let's figure out the legal/practical
issues and automate the tests" than "let's have another discussion
about QA/SIG relationships", I think.

And on the Cloud tests - the major issue there was that AMI
production/upload got broken so there were no AMIs to test. I think the
Cloud folks are generally aware that testing needs doing and involved
in doing it, but that was the stumbling block this time. We could've
noticed it a bit earlier - that's mostly my fault for not going through
the matrices the day before go/no-go, I was distracted by fixing
Rawhide. But again, that seems more like a specific problem than a
general one. I don't know if fedimg or whatever has been fixed yet, if
anyone has the ticket handy please link it...

I can configure the bot that creates the events to email lists other
than test-announce easily enough. IIRC it doesn't because long ago when
I wrote it, the feedback from other groups was that they can easily
subscribe to test-announce to get the announcements and they didn't
want the CC spam. But we can certainly revisit that.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure