/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2020/08/28/#snappy.txt

mupPR snapd#9235 opened: tests: new tests for nested and external <Run nested> <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9235>02:19
mupPR snapd#9233 closed: vendor: run ./get-deps.sh to update the secboot hash <Skip spread> <Created by mvo5> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9233>05:00
mborzeckimorning05:23
mupPR snapd#9232 closed: run-checks: check for dirty build tree too <Skip spread> <Created by mvo5> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9232>05:30
=== blackboxsw_ is now known as blackboxsw_eod
zygao/05:39
zygamvo you're up early05:39
* zyga leaves the macbook to charge and goes upstairs to do reviews from the imac05:43
mborzeckimvo: zyga: hey05:52
mvohey zyga and mborzecki05:53
mupPR snapd#9236 opened: kernel: remove "edition" from kernel.yaml and add "update" <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9236>06:05
mborzeckiheh, in the 15.2 images we have there's no daemon user/group06:07
mborzeckizyga: i think we need to fix the rpm spec on openssue and add a dependency on system-user-daemon (as daemon is needed for system usernames)06:11
mborzeckizyga: idk why but installing lsb release does not seem to pull in that package (even though daemon user is required by lsb?)06:12
mvothanks for this06:14
mvoI mean, thanks for looking/fixing this06:14
mvomborzecki: quick question - gadget updates are already smart in the sense that there is no file update if the hash is the same, correct?06:16
mborzeckimvo: yes06:16
mvota06:16
* mvo still scratches head over how to best apply the kernel-dtb refs06:17
mborzeckimvo: this is the bit that does that https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/blob/master/gadget/mountedfilesystem.go#L76306:18
mvomborzecki: ta06:18
jameshzyga: thanks for the review comments.  Since you're the expert on process tracking, my spread test is failing on Ubuntu 14.04, where it doesn't seem to be able to identify a process from a classic confined snap.  Is that a known limitation?06:26
zygajamesh, yes, 14.04 has no tracking06:45
zygajamesh we could fake it I mean06:45
zygawe can expand tracking to use apparmor labels06:45
zygathat would cover 14.0406:46
zygaby fake it, I mean we could be better while not being really equal to 16.04+06:46
zygamborzecki sounds good (dependency change) - I have some changes I didn't merge into master, related to suse packaging06:46
jameshzyga: weird that the rest of the test using strict confinement passed then.06:46
zygajamesh, hmmm, but even with classic confinement, we should be setting an apparmor label06:47
mborzeckizyga: i have a fix to push to #921806:47
mupPR #9218: tests: running tests on opensuse leap 15.2 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9218>06:47
jameshzyga: I could probably just skip the test on 14.0406:47
zygajamesh which exact test is that?06:47
zygajamesh I honestly think that's best06:47
zyga14.04 is not a fully supported release06:47
jameshzyga: the spread test in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9132: the "exit_staus 11 ..." test at the end to check against a classic process returns 10 (which is "not snap confined")06:49
mupPR #9132: o/hookstate/ctlcmd: add optional --pid argument to "snapctl is-connected" <Created by jhenstridge> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9132>06:49
zygajamesh I'll look06:49
pstolowskimorning07:04
* zyga small errand07:07
zygahey Pawel07:07
mvogood morning pstolowski07:18
mborzeckizyga: can you take a look at?07:26
mborzeckizyga: pff, forgot to paste the link ;P https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/921807:26
mupPR #9218: tests: running tests on opensuse leap 15.2 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9218>07:26
pstolowskieh, snap-logs test failures seem related to my services changes but i don't understand how07:33
pstolowskidid anyone see this test failing on master recently?07:34
zygamborzecki looks sensible07:46
mborzeckipstolowski: snap logs?07:46
mborzeckipstolowski: there's a PR from ijohnson with a bug fix, do you have a log?07:47
pstolowskimborzecki: yes sna logs07:47
mborzeckipstolowski: this PR from ian: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/923407:47
mupPR #9234: systemd/systemd.go: support journald JSON messages with arrays for values <Bug> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9234>07:47
mborzeckirelated?07:48
pstolowskimborzecki: ah, interesting! thanks, could be07:49
pstolowskigoing to test with my branch07:49
pstolowskithis test often fails on snap logs -f ... check (no match for the expected log message), but snap logs -n=all does include it07:51
mborzeckiquick errand, back in 3008:37
pedronispstolowski: now the service PR is ready for re-review, right? (not sure I'll get to it today though)09:04
pstolowskipedronis: i'm testing ijohnson's fix for log parsing to see if it fixes snap-logs test failures in my PR, i'll know shortly09:05
mborzeckire09:15
pedronismborzecki: hi, is #9201 still a draft or should I re-review it?09:16
mupPR #9201: boot: observe update & rollback of trusted assets <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9201>09:16
mborzeckipedronis: i converted it to non-draft09:16
mborzeckipedronis: would appreciate if you could take a look, and maybe we can discuss things if needed09:17
pedronisok09:17
mborzeckimvo: can you force merge https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9218 ? the failure on 18.04 is unrelated09:21
mupPR #9218: tests: running tests on opensuse leap 15.2 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9218>09:21
mvomborzecki: sure09:25
mvomborzecki: also reviewed/approved the other pr09:25
mborzeckimvo: thanks!09:26
mupPR snapd#9218 closed: tests: running tests on opensuse leap 15.2 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9218>09:26
pstolowskipedronis: Ian's fix didn't help with my issue with snap-logs, probably makes sense if you wait till i figure out what's going on09:44
pedronispstolowski: ok, it wasn't yet at the top of my queue anyway09:55
pstolowskiha https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/v9G8ZMsw2c/10:00
pstolowskijournalctl seems to be skipping messages if we ask for multiple units10:01
mborzeckimacos github job failing?10:28
mborzeckihuh https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/runs/104103100710:34
mborzeckigo get golang.org/x/sys/unix apparently fails there10:35
ijohnsonmorning folks10:39
ijohnsonanybody have any ideas why I would be getting `cannot install "generic-classic" fallback model assertion: no matching public key "Lcw4MOHeD6yUabUqD_Gd5BwBGuJBB6t8jDV42wg02jv5XikFZoe6CBMJAo5pTbrW" for signature by "generic"` for unit tests I didn't change in o/devicestate ?10:40
ijohnsonpedronis: maybe ^ ?10:40
pstolowskihi ijohnson10:56
ijohnsonhey pstolowski10:57
ijohnsonmore fun with journald I see ?10:57
pstolowskiijohnson: yes10:57
ijohnsonthe fun never ends!10:58
pedronisijohnson: where is that?  it seems an assertion db not configured right11:01
ijohnsonpedronis: it comes from the firstBoot16Suite.TestPopulateFromSeedOnClassicNoop unit test11:01
ijohnsonthis only happens when I enable my 2nd suite in devicestate_cloudinit_test.go for uc20 variants11:02
ijohnsonwhere my uc20 suite inherits from the devicemgrbasesuite11:02
pedronisijohnson: ok, something is not cleaning up correctly I suppose11:02
ijohnsonpedronis: what's most confusing is that I have tried even deleting all of the setup code from my uc20 suite, and simply calling the device mgr base suite setup is enough to trigger this other unit tests to fail11:03
ijohnsonpedronis: do you want me to push a wip branch to look at the tests ?11:03
pedronisijohnson: I suppose11:04
ijohnsonone moment11:04
ijohnsonpedronis: sorry still a wip commit, but here is my current branch: https://github.com/anonymouse64/snapd/commit/8c17373ac055a1d0ef90f99f3bc8a566ed594b9511:10
ijohnsonpedronis: if you just run all the tests in o/devicestate you should see the issue with all of my various print statements11:10
* ijohnson afk for quick breakfast11:10
mborzecki2020-08-28T10:15:41.3077042Z - Fetch and check assertions for snap "test-snapd-content-plug" (5) (cannot fetch assertion: got unexpected HTTP status code 408 via GET to "https://api.snapcraft.io/api/v1/snaps/assertions/snap-revision/UzfhJIDc1A04xUNzbAEwvu2_aCeT3FxOvo5tsKFG2V9ZzssK_ZIaEiRAFh8RdNus?max-format=0")11:15
mborzeckipedronis: still getting 408 from time time apparently ^^11:15
pedronisyea11:15
ijohnsonok I'm back11:27
mvopstolowski: 9211 looks good, please let me know if you need a force-merge or if the spread issues are real11:30
ijohnsonmvo: could I ask for your super powers on https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9225#issuecomment-682478359 ?11:39
mupPR #9225: many: cloud-init cleanups from previous PR's <Cleanup :broom:> <Run nested> <Simple 😃> <Test Robustness> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9225>11:39
ijohnsonthe comment I just linked to explains the various spread failures, some of which are already fixed in master11:39
ijohnsonnone of which are related to the PR in question11:39
ijohnsonhuh I think the issue I was having is that my cloudInitUC20Suite embedded the cloudInitBaseSuite struct, which embeds the deviceMgrBaseSuite, and so it inherited a SetUpTest from that, but then I also called setup on deviceMgrBaseSuite again separately, so setting my test up twice caused a different test to fail11:44
ijohnsonpedronis: ^11:45
pstolowskimvo: yes i think you can merge11:46
pedronisijohnson: yes, I see some setup being run twice, is that the problem though?11:46
ijohnsonpedronis: I am not 100% sure, but I am going to try with a small patch on master to see if I can reproduce with just calling deviceMgrBaseSuite's setup twice on a single test11:47
pedronisijohnson: anyway fwiw the line that is causing trouble is s.AddCleanup(sysdb.MockGenericClassicModel(s.storeSigning.GenericClassicModel))11:47
ijohnsonyes11:47
ijohnsonsorry I meant interesting11:48
pedronisit seems is not undone properly ?11:48
ijohnsonhmm11:48
pedronisah11:49
pedronisit's funny probably11:49
pedronisin a terrible sort of funny way11:49
pedronislet me see if I'm right11:49
pedronisijohnson: yes, the issue is the double setup, the problem with that is among other things that the first setup is never undone, because the 2nd setup will simply reset the cleanup function list11:58
ijohnsonpedronis: hmm that's weird, should we fix that ?11:59
pedronisijohnson: I don't know if it's weird or not, it's one way to implement this, you need to stare at testutils/base.go12:01
ijohnsonuhh12:02
ijohnsonAddCleanup just appends the handlers, so the handler should just get called even if it's appended twice ?12:02
ijohnsonoh I wonder if it's called in the wrong order12:02
ijohnsonmaybe AddCleanup should be a stack12:02
pedroniswell, the order is weird as well12:02
pedronisbut that's the problem12:02
ijohnson*use12:02
pedronisyour second setup12:02
pedroniscalls the BaseTest.Setup12:02
pedronisthat's just forgets everything12:03
ijohnsonahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh12:03
ijohnsonyes you're right12:03
ijohnsonI see it now12:03
pedronisSetUpTest is not really intended to be called twice12:03
pedronisin general I mean12:03
ijohnsonyes, I'm not sure how I accidentally got to that point12:03
ijohnsonbut I think it's clear to me that as long as we don't use BaseTest.SetUpTest twice things are fine12:04
ijohnsonso that was my original problem12:04
pedronisyes12:04
ijohnsonok, good to know12:04
pedronisbut I agree that the order we call the cleanup is weird12:04
pedronisit should be a stack12:04
ijohnsonI will fix up this commit and open the PR shortly12:04
pedronisI don't know why is like that12:04
ijohnsonprobably just because it was easy12:04
ijohnsonlast change to that file was 4 years ago12:04
pedronisanyway I don't think SetUpTest should need to cleanup the handlers, is not a map, otoh maybe it should panic if the handlers are not empty already12:05
ijohnsonI like that change a lot actually12:06
ijohnsonwould have made it super obvious my error very quickly12:06
pedronismaybe I should try to do that in a separate PR and fix the order, and see if anything breaks12:06
ijohnsonI will propose that in a separate PR I think12:06
pedronisor you can12:06
ijohnsonwell I will work on that after opening the cloud-init PR12:06
ijohnsonso if you want to do it first go for it12:06
pedronisok, I'll try to do that just now12:08
pedronisijohnson: we have some tests that fail interestingly12:12
cachiozyga, hi12:12
zygahi12:12
ijohnsonoooh fun12:12
ijohnsonmorning cachio and zyga12:12
zyganice find on non-stack cleanup for base test12:12
cachioijohnson, good morning12:12
zygaand the related issues12:12
zygamaybe base test should panic if invoked incorrectly12:13
pedronisijohnson: one is cloud init, was the problem already on master?12:13
cachiozyga, yesterday implented what you sent and that works, the session is created12:13
ijohnsonpedronis: no, there shouldn't any problems on master12:13
ijohnsonwell I don't think so12:13
cachiozyga, during the test the sesions is there12:13
ijohnsonpedronis: what test failed ?12:13
pedronisijohnson: well it's panicing12:13
ijohnsonerr how did it fail12:13
cachiozyga, but still fails when we do "systemctl --user daemon-reload"12:14
pedroniswell I added code to panic if cleanup handlers are not empty in setup12:14
pedroniswhat I said before12:14
ijohnson:-(12:14
ijohnsonok, I will have a look12:14
zygacachio what do you mean "fails", what fails when you do this?12:14
cachiozyga, 1 sec12:15
pedronisijohnson: I see issues with repair, something in cmd/snap (just one test, that is weird)12:15
pedronisand then quite a few in devicestate12:15
pedronisthe rest is fine12:15
cachiozyga, https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/PPYFgSQy69/12:17
cachiofail like this12:17
zygacachio before the failure, do we still have the seesion?12:17
cachiozyga, yes12:17
zygaare you absolutely sure?12:17
cachiowhen it fails we have the session in the debug session12:18
zygathe root session?12:18
cachioyes12:18
zygacan you check the status of user@0.service12:18
cachiozyga, sure12:18
ijohnsonpedronis: I don't understand how, but if I make cloudInitSuite embed a pointer to deviceMgrBaseSuite and initialize that pointer in cloudInitSuite.SetUpTest, then the panic goes away12:19
ijohnsonpedronis: I have seen other test suites that inherit base suites do that too, so perhaps that's the thing to do12:19
ijohnsonotoh, I have seen the pattern of not defining SetUpTest for the base suite, and instead having something like setup() for the base suite which needs to be called from the final suite's SetUpTest12:20
pedronisijohnson: so some tests call SetUpTest on their own, fun12:21
pedroniswithout TearDown12:21
ijohnsonugh what12:21
ijohnsonI'm still confused how this happens for i.e. the cloudInitSuite since we aren't manually calling SetUpTest there12:22
pedroniswell, I'll have to stare it myself in a bit12:22
ijohnsonok, well we know how to make the panic's go away12:23
* ijohnson returns to prepping the cloud-init PR12:23
cachiozyga, https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/vvxJCWCr67/12:24
zygacachio and systemctl --user status12:24
zyga(note: assuming this is invoked by root)12:25
zyganot by the external user12:25
cachioFailed to connect to bus: No such file or directory12:25
zygastrace -f systemctl --user status12:25
zygaand check which connect fails12:25
cachioI am in core1612:27
cachiodont have strace12:27
cachiois there an y snap instead?12:27
zygawe have strace static12:27
zygatry that12:27
cachiothis is hte output https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/KjKMz6s5g9/12:29
zygacachio run strace-static directly, not as a snap please12:30
cachiohttps://paste.ubuntu.com/p/w5krDr87Np/12:31
cachiolike that?12:32
zygano12:34
zygathat's not any different12:34
zygadirectly without snap run pipeline12:34
cachiozyga, https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/VGQYZKsXP5/12:38
zygaopen("/sys/fs/kdbus/1001-user/bus", O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)12:39
zygathis is not running as root for real12:39
zygaare you logged in as the external user?12:39
cachiohttps://paste.ubuntu.com/p/t3sHWqj9CC/12:39
cachiowe login as external12:40
zygausing sudo / su will again bring back the same issues12:40
zygait's not the same12:40
zygaas logging in as root12:40
cachiothrough ssh12:40
cachiothen we make sudo to run the test script12:40
zygahmm?12:40
zygawe cannot do that12:40
cachioso we should run with runuser?12:40
zygawe must use what I provided to run the script12:40
zygarunuser won't work directly12:40
zygado you understand what the problem is?12:41
cachiopartially12:41
zygathe script cannot run in the session of the external user which just happens to elevate to root12:41
zygaour tests do not cope with that12:41
zygamy suggestion was to run the whole test this way12:42
zyga"this way" is the way we talked about yesterday, with the service and pam name12:42
zygathis then runs in an environment very similar to root ssh-ing into the system12:42
zygacachio perhaps we can log in as external12:43
zygainstall a ssh key for root12:43
zygaand then go back to running as root12:43
cachiois it possible to do that in core syste?12:43
cachioto add a ssh key for root?12:43
zygacan you write to /root/.ssh/?12:44
zygaif so then yes12:44
zygaI mean...12:44
zygaroot is not read only :D12:44
cachiozyga, but to connect to the system  using spread a password we need for root12:45
cachiobecause spread just connects using password12:46
zygasomething has to change12:46
zygawhat we have doesn't work12:46
zygawe just need to pick the most sensible thing to alter12:46
cachiozyga, so12:47
cachiosome time ago I did a change12:47
cachioin sporead to support connecting using ssh keys12:47
cachioif we could add that to spread we could connect using root12:47
cachioand the problem is solved12:47
cachioright?12:48
zygaif we can connect as root over ssh then yes12:48
zygahowever that is done12:48
zygacachio could we hack it like this?12:48
zygaadd an extrauser12:48
zygaroot-with-password12:48
zygahave it have uid 012:48
zygaand home /root12:48
zygabut have a password?12:49
cachiowe need password for spread12:49
zygaright, but isn't that what I just said?12:50
cachioI though it was a question12:52
zygacachio?12:52
cachio1 sec12:53
cachiocan do that12:55
cachioWarning: The home dir /root you specified already exists.12:55
cachioadduser: The UID 0 is already in use.12:55
zygacachio you can add it as another uid12:57
zygaand just sed it to zero12:57
zygait's just the tool that complains12:57
cachiozyga, cant create the home /root12:58
cachiobecause it already exists12:58
zygause whatever directory and edit the created user12:58
zygayou can just edit the text file12:58
zygayou can even just append to12:59
mupPR snapd#9237 opened: [RFC] many: enable cloud-init on uc20 for grade signed and secured <Complex> <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9237>13:02
* zyga will go AFK in about 10 minutes13:03
mborzeckierrands, bbl14:04
pedronisijohnson: so on master things are clean for me now14:23
pedronisdevicestate was in a very messy state though14:23
mupPR snapd#9225 closed: many: cloud-init cleanups from previous PR's <Cleanup :broom:> <Run nested> <Simple 😃> <Test Robustness> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9225>14:32
cachioijohnson, is this the same error you fixed a time ago for uc20-recovery test? https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/C94XTPBTWG/14:39
ijohnsoncachio: could be, will look in little bit14:40
=== blackboxsw_ is now known as blackboxsw
* cachio lunch14:55
ijohnsonpedronis: so are you going to prepare a PR to make the panic change ?14:55
pedronisijohnson: yes, about to propose it actually14:55
ijohnsonpedronis: also if you could give a quick review to #9237 on the general direction and options names and such I can split it up14:55
mupPR #9237: [RFC] many: enable cloud-init on uc20 for grade signed and secured <Complex> <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9237>14:55
ijohnsonthanks14:55
ijohnsonI guess names of things can be separate PR's but the overall interaction between devicestate and sysconfig.ConfigureRunSystem via the options is more what I'm curious about14:56
pedronisijohnson: I have a meeting now but I'll try to look after14:56
ijohnsonk, thanks14:57
pedronisijohnson: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9238 is the PR, likely it might conflict with yours14:57
mupPR #9238: many: check that users of BaseTest don't forget to consume cleanups <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9238>14:57
mupPR snapd#9238 opened: many: check that users of BaseTest don't forget to consume cleanups <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9238>14:57
ijohnsonpedronis: sure no problem, the RFC one won't be mergable right away unless one big PR review is easiest14:57
mupPR snapd#9239 opened: many: misc doc-comment changes and typo fixes <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9239>15:07
pstolowskipedronis: your hunch about systemd & my --root change was good... this is peculiar: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/yMXYd93ZQZ/15:11
pstolowskialso funny how the message is slightly different15:14
ijohnsonpedronis: I de-conflicted things so that #9237 doesn't need your PR and doesn't conflict with it afaict and updated the PR description to reflect this15:16
mupPR #9237: [RFC] many: enable cloud-init on uc20 for grade signed and secured <Complex> <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9237>15:16
pstolowskithe basic problem is we set rsyslog in gagdet defaults (which makes no sense on core18 but because of emulation mode), but then we fail on normal "snap set.. ", but that was masked with --root=.. as my pastebin demonstrates, because it prints error but gives exit 015:16
ijohnsonpstolowski: bash exit codes strike again?15:17
pstolowskiijohnson: what about bash exit codes?15:17
mupPR snapd#9240 opened: o/devicestate/devicestate_cloudinit_test.go: test cleanup for uc20 cloud-init tests <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Test Robustness> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9240>15:17
ijohnsonpstolowski: you said "because it prints error but gives exit 0"15:17
pstolowskiijohnson: see https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/yMXYd93ZQZ/15:18
ijohnsonjust curious if that was related to all the random bash issues that zyga has discovered recently15:18
pstolowskiijohnson: ah got you. no it's not bash, it' ssytemctl behavior15:18
ijohnsonah great15:18
ijohnsonthat's so silly15:18
pstolowskiijohnson: note the slightly different spelling of the error message...15:18
ijohnson--root=/ makes it exit with code 0 and not that option makes it exit with code 115:18
pstolowskiyet it means the same15:19
ijohnsonoh ffs15:19
ijohnsonthat's ridiculous15:19
pstolowski"error but not really"15:21
pstolowskiit's also the case on 20.0415:26
ijohnsonmmm how do we do tests for grade signed images in spread with custom snapd snaps15:40
ijohnsonbecause grade signed model assertions don't allow unasserted snaps15:40
ijohnsonpedronis: thoughts ?15:40
ijohnsoncachio: do you have more logs from that uc20-recovery failure? it seems that it should have gone back to run mode but it didn't so that seems like a real test failure15:43
mupPR snapd#9241 opened: tests: do not set rsyslog.disable in core18 config defaults test <Test Robustness> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9241>15:47
pstolowskii see no other option than ^15:47
pedronisijohnson: there is nothing easy we can do, what kind of modifications do you need?15:53
pedronisijohnson: also I did a pass on #923715:53
mupPR #9237: [RFC] many: enable cloud-init on uc20 for grade signed and secured <Complex> <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9237>15:53
pstolowskihmm i wonder if we should maybe ignore error on disable in configcore15:54
pedronispstolowski: well, if I understand the issue is that we trying to disable a service that doesn't exist?15:56
pedronisand in that case --root makes a difference15:57
pstolowskipedronis: yes, we do that because test setup is wrong, but it is masked because with --root systemctl returns 015:58
ijohnsonpedronis: I'm trying to write a spread test of the grade signed cloud-init changes16:02
ijohnsonpedronis: but how do I test grade signed with an unasserted custom snapd snap16:02
pedronispstolowski: systemd seems to be using a special exit code to mean no unit16:06
pedronisbut is not consistent16:07
pstolowskipedronis: yes16:07
zygaback from PT16:08
zygaI need to catch up and cover this time, I'll be here for a few hours at least16:08
pedronisijohnson: we can only write a test using store snaps , so I'm asking what changes do we need?  otherwise we can have a chat but the solutions are slightly horrible16:09
ijohnsonpedronis: well if we accept that we can only write cloud-init spread tests for grade signed, then we don't need any changes16:10
ijohnsonpedronis: it just means that getting all the bits correct for uc20 cloud-init will take more time as I can't verify anything with an integration test16:10
pedronisI can't parse that sentence16:10
ijohnsonpedronis: sorry let me rephrase16:11
ijohnsonpedronis: I would like to write a spread test like we have for uc16/uc18 cloud-init but for grade==signed uc2016:11
ijohnsonpedronis: but I can't write this spread test today because there is no snapd snap in the store with my changes I made16:11
zygacachio any luck?16:11
pedronisijohnson: can we have a quick chat?16:11
ijohnsonpedronis: sure16:11
ijohnsonpedronis: I'm in SU HO16:12
pedronispstolowski: it seems that systemctl status foo uses exit code 4 when the unit is not there, maybe we should teach systemd.Status to detect that and then use Status in the loop to know if a service exits at all16:12
pedronisans just skip doing anything with it16:13
pedronisif it doesn't16:13
pstolowskipedronis: to be clear about systemctl issue, this is not about emulation mode (we use it when we should); this is about running for real, per man page the mere presence of --root bypasses systemd (and apparently changes semantics of error code)16:13
pstolowskipedronis: yeah, probably16:14
pedronisyes, that's why I'm suggesting something slightly complicated16:14
pedronisI don't think we want to just ignore errors without understanding them16:14
pstolowskifair point16:14
pstolowskii'll address this on monday, thanks16:18
pstolowskihave a great weekend everyone!16:18
cachioijohnson, hey, do you know if there was any change that could produce this cd: /home/gopath/src/github.com/snapcore/snapd/tests/core/uc20-recovery: No such file or directory16:54
cachioI think it is the first thing you fixed16:54
cachiofor this test16:54
ijohnsoncachio: I asked earlier before you disconnected16:58
ijohnsoncachio: do you have more logs from that run ?16:58
cachiono, but I can reproduce it16:59
ijohnsoncachio: what seems to have happened is a real test failure, where we went to reboot and should have gone back to run mode, but we didn't and went back to recover mode16:59
ijohnsoncachio: if you could get me the full system journal that would be great16:59
cachioand give you a shell there16:59
ijohnsonI need to go break for lunch now, but will be back in a little bit to debug this further with you16:59
=== ijohnson is now known as ijohnson|lunch
cachioijohnson|lunch, sure16:59
pedronis#9201 needs 2nd reviews17:07
mupPR #9201: boot: observe update & rollback of trusted assets <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9201>17:07
* zyga grabs coffee 17:17
=== ijohnson|lunch is now known as ijohnson
ijohnsonpedronis: yes I can take a look, also should I look at the cups PR again today ?17:51
pedronisijohnson: if you can (abou cups)17:54
ijohnsonpedronis: sure17:54
cachioijohnson, I have an instance ready17:57
cachioijohnson, which already failed17:57
cachioyou need to be connected to the vpn17:58
pedroniscmatsuoka: ijohnson: do you need anything more from me today?18:52
ijohnsonpedronis: no I'm good18:52
* ijohnson is staring at fakestore18:52
* ijohnson to some useful effect however18:52
cmatsuokapedronis: I'm trying the bootloader chain composition but found some problems19:10
cmatsuokapedronis: mainly related to being unable to, after composing the run mode chain, map entries to the asset cache19:11
cmatsuoka(because we don't know from the final chain which parts came from each bootloader)19:11
cmatsuokain my previous implementation I was doing this mapping before composing the run mode chain19:12
cmatsuokaI could do the same thing but it seems to me that the bootloader shouldn't be cache-aware19:13
cmatsuokaanyway, I'll think a bit about the in-between degraded upgrade states before returning to the boot chains19:14
pedroniscmatsuoka: I see two approaches to that we include the root path in the assets names then you can find which partition/bootloader they belong to from that, or we return just names (that is what we need) and have a separate flag/marker to know which role/partition they are on19:24
cmatsuokapedronis: just the name with an origin mark should solve it19:25
cmatsuokapedronis: thanks19:25
* cachio afk21:04

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!