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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

WIP: Handle autoinst AND autoupgrade (bsc#1222153) [SLE-15-SP5] #1114

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: SLE-15-SP5
Choose a base branch
from
Open

WIP: Handle autoinst AND autoupgrade (bsc#1222153) [SLE-15-SP5] #1114

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

shundhammer
Copy link
Contributor

@shundhammer shundhammer commented Apr 15, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Target Branch

This is for SLE-15-SP5. A merge to SLE-15-SP6 and to master will follow.

Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222153

Problem

In AutoYaST upgrade mode, the halt instruction doesn't work:

<general>
  <mode>
    <halt config:type="boolean">false</halt>
  </mode>
  ...
</general>

Cause

The code only checked for Mode.autoinst, not also for Mode.autoupgrade, or, more generally, for Mode.auto which checks for both.

Fix

Check for Mode.auto, not just for Mode.autoinst.

Test

This is intended as a DUD for the customer to test.

Related PRs

  • Merge to SLE-15-SP6: TBD
  • Merge to master: TBD

@shundhammer shundhammer marked this pull request as draft April 15, 2024 15:39
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 15, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

coverage: 40.913% (-0.2%) from 41.105%
when pulling c08ae16 on l3-1222153-halt
into d1471c9 on master.

@shundhammer shundhammer changed the base branch from master to SLE-15-SP5 May 6, 2024 09:54
@shundhammer shundhammer changed the title WIP: Handle autoinst AND autoupgrade (bsc#1222153) WIP: Handle autoinst AND autoupgrade (bsc#1222153) [SLE-15-SP5] May 6, 2024
@shundhammer shundhammer marked this pull request as ready for review May 7, 2024 09:05
@shundhammer
Copy link
Contributor Author

No idea why coveralls thinks the coverage decreased. It's just a one-word change.

@shundhammer
Copy link
Contributor Author

The L3 customer was happy enough with the workaround.

This begs the question if we still want to do this code change, and if yes, in what branches.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@shundhammer @coveralls