Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create qm sanity tests #342

Closed
pbrilla-rh opened this issue Feb 15, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #486
Closed

Create qm sanity tests #342

pbrilla-rh opened this issue Feb 15, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #486
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@pbrilla-rh
Copy link
Collaborator

pbrilla-rh commented Feb 15, 2024

We have several test cases for FFI, but we are missing some basic/simple sanity tests for qm, if it is installed properly and/or if environment started successfully

Adding Note:
I would add updating tiear-0 test to verify through bluchictl

If there are 2 bluechi nodes connected to controller from host and QM it means that QM service is up and podman container is running

@Yarboa Yarboa added good first issue Good for newcomers testing labels Feb 15, 2024
@dougsland
Copy link
Collaborator

@pengshanyu are you interested in this one? I am sure @pbrilla-rh and I can share more info if needed. Assigning to you for now.

@Yarboa
Copy link
Collaborator

Yarboa commented Mar 13, 2024

@pengshanyu

I assume tier-0 tests which run on different scenario in the pipeline sould run also with the
filter: tag:ffi of /plans/e2e/ffi

Please use this test, tests/qm-unit-files/main.fmf

that run in different test setups , you can manipulate the same
like here
/tests/qm-connectivity/tier0
/tests/qm-connectivity/tier1

Add ffi tag for test
/tests/qm-connectivity/ffi
Whenever FFI filter is selected, qm-connectivity, with some ENV changes will verify ffi setup

Consider also change the tags, since now test tier-0 will be ffi,

@pengshanyu
Copy link
Collaborator

@Yarboa Thank you for sharing.

@pengshanyu
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @Yarboa, it seems that the tier0 test mentioned by Pavol is different from the one you mentioned in the comment above. What test cases do we want tier0 to include? Thanks.

@Yarboa
Copy link
Collaborator

Yarboa commented Jul 1, 2024

Correct this repo evolved within time
Could be that tier-0 tests running in that gate, should be renamed, I think it is not so important for now that we have the FFI test environemt

But, I could think of tier-0 tests as per that one:

  1. Verify qm is up and running
    systemctl is-active qm
  2. Verify bluechi nodes are connected
    bluechictl status,
    2 nodes connected
  3. podman run and exec container inside qm with service file
  4. /var partition exist

@pengshanyu
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @Yarboa ,
I setup the qm environment by running set-ffi-env-e2e, and then do the checks mentioned in #342 (comment). Is this correct, or do I need to setup the qm environment in some other way?

I found inside qm, bluechi-agent can not connect to bluechi-controller.

[root@ibm-p8-kvm-03-guest-02 ~]# podman exec -it qm bash -c "systemctl status bluechi-agent" | tail -2
Jul 09 06:10:33 d32c3acf027c bluechi-agent[35]: Connecting to controller on tcp:host=127.0.0.1,port=842
Jul 09 06:10:33 d32c3acf027c bluechi-agent[35]: Registering as 'qm.localrootfs' failed: Transport endpoint is not connected

I know this is because ControllerHost is missing in /etc/qm/bluechi/agent.conf.d/agent.conf
but actually, I didn't find the qm bluechi-agent configuration in set-ffi-env-e2e. Can I insert ControllerHost into /etc/qm/bluechi/agent.conf.d/agent.conf like I did with agent-flood to connect qm bluechi-agent and bluechi-controller?

@pengshanyu
Copy link
Collaborator

@Yarboa @pbrilla-rh I named the sanity test to tier-0, but there are also tier-0 tests in qm-connectivity and qm-unit-files, how should they be renamed or do we want them to be tier-0 along with the sanity tests?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants