Merge lp:~canonical-platform-qa/ubuntu-ota-tests/create_online_accounts into lp:ubuntu-ota-tests
| Status: | Merged |
|---|---|
| Approved by: | Richard Huddie on 2015-04-02 |
| Approved revision: | 26 |
| Merged at revision: | 16 |
| Proposed branch: | lp:~canonical-platform-qa/ubuntu-ota-tests/create_online_accounts |
| Merge into: | lp:ubuntu-ota-tests |
| Diff against target: |
130 lines (+82/-14) 5 files modified
debian/tests/control (+6/-0) debian/tests/create_u1_account (+38/-0) debian/tests/ota-test_accounts_after_upgrade (+10/-0) debian/tests/reboot_to_recovery (+28/-0) ubuntu_ota_tests/__init__.py (+0/-14) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~canonical-platform-qa/ubuntu-ota-tests/create_online_accounts |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| PS Jenkins bot | continuous-integration | Approve on 2015-04-02 | |
| Richard Huddie (community) | Approve on 2015-04-02 | ||
| Christopher Lee (community) | Approve on 2015-04-02 | ||
| Federico Gimenez (community) | 2015-03-18 | Approve on 2015-03-18 | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
Commit Message
Create online accounts, upgrade the system and then check they are still available
Description of the Change
Create online accounts, upgrade the system and then check they are still available.
A quick explanation about the removing of __all__ from ubuntu_
| Richard Huddie (rhuddie) wrote : | # |
I ran this and it seemed to work fine. But should we also delete the account that was added, at the end of the test? I ran this a twice and there were 2 u1 accounts created on the device.
Thanks.
- 19. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-03-18
-
Fix review issues
| Brendan Donegan (brendan-donegan) wrote : | # |
> Works fine, only a couple of issues inline.
>
> Maybe we have already discussed this but could we check something more than
> the account provider (email or creds)?
>
> Thanks,
Both issues fixed, thanks
We could potentially but this goes far enough to catch the bug and it's really just meant to be an example of how to write such a test. Doing extra checks is a nice to have but not essential
| Brendan Donegan (brendan-donegan) wrote : | # |
> I ran this and it seemed to work fine. But should we also delete the account
> that was added, at the end of the test? I ran this a twice and there were 2 u1
> accounts created on the device.
>
> Thanks.
I fixed the inline comment - I specifically remember fixing that commenting out but it seems it didn't stick!
Although it's not marked as such at the moment these tests will probably be defined as breaks-testbed which will result in them re-imaging the device afterwards. So cleaning up the accounts would be redundant.
- 20. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-03-18
-
Restore check_for_update test
| Christopher Lee (veebers) wrote : | # |
NF comment in line, in the process of running locally will reply once run.
- 21. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-03-18
-
Run test_accounts_
after_upgrade with Tests: instead of Test-Command:
| Leo Arias (elopio) wrote : | # |
I cleaned the basic test in https:/
You can write your test as a python test case following that style. Maybe even move the before_upgrade, upgrade and after_upgrade methods to a base class.
| Christopher Lee (veebers) wrote : | # |
With the change to the control file (using Tests: instead of Test-Command:) this change is needed due to the change in path where the execution happens:
http://
| Leo Arias (elopio) wrote : | # |
> I cleaned the basic test in https:/
> /ubuntu-
>
> You can write your test as a python test case following that style. Maybe even
> move the before_upgrade, upgrade and after_upgrade methods to a base class.
veebers has just told me that there are problems with making the test a python test case, so scracth what I said.
- 22. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-03-19
-
Specify full path to supporting scripts
- 23. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-03-19
-
Merged from trunk
- 24. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-03-31
-
Set PYTHONPATH when sudoing and use the right reboot mark name
- 25. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-03-31
-
Remove pdb's that were added£
| Brendan Donegan (brendan-donegan) wrote : | # |
Works now running locally. Ran it succesfully with run-ota-tests script
| Christopher Lee (veebers) wrote : | # |
Hmm, I tried running just the test using the command that the run-ota-test would use and it failed to run the test.
Command: adt-run -B --testname check_for_update --unbuilt-
The error is:
chmod: cannot access ‘/tmp/adt-
I believe that this is due to it being called 'check-for-update' in the control file and the script name being called 'check_for_update'
Can you confirm that the test runs for you?
- 26. By Brendan Donegan on 2015-04-01
-
Fix name of check for updates test
| Brendan Donegan (brendan-donegan) wrote : | # |
Looks like that got changed accidentally when I merged. Thanks for catching it. Fixed
| Christopher Lee (veebers) wrote : | # |
To get this test to run just by itself I needed to add python3-autopilot to it's depends.
After adding that the test runs as expected and passes.
Once that dep is added to the Depends this turns into an approve :-)
| Brendan Donegan (brendan-donegan) wrote : | # |
> To get this test to run just by itself I needed to add python3-autopilot to
> it's depends.
>
> After adding that the test runs as expected and passes.
>
> Once that dep is added to the Depends this turns into an approve :-)
That's odd I see it right there in the Depends: section - what am I missing here?
| Christopher Lee (veebers) wrote : | # |
Heh, sorry my bad I was looking at the wrong test.
After testing the right one it all passes for me :-) LGTM

Works fine, only a couple of issues inline.
Maybe we have already discussed this but could we check something more than the account provider (email or creds)?
Thanks,