Support specifying branch in `/packit test $repo $branch`

[TomasTomecek]

The syntax is to be decided.

@fernflower requested to support specifying branches in our /packit test $repo#$pr trigger. This RFE should extend the existing funcionality where you can specify PR, with this addition, branch can be specified as well.

[fernflower]

Thank you!

[TomasTomecek]

I am including two more comments from Ina from our recent discussion on slack (now that I re-read it again) and would like to 100% confirm this request is correct

Now we have '/rerun' for leapp PRs, that will build leapp-pr-version and fetch leapp-repositorymaster; while '/rerun 4242' will build leapp-pr-version, build leapp-repository4242*, and pass both as test artifacts to testing farm.

So it's not about enabling leapp package installation by specifying additional repos (which is what additional_repos is about iiuc). It is about "how do I instruct packit to run tests with both leapp-from-pr-build and leapp-repository-master-or-the-version-user-specified"

Do I understand correctly that you have 3 test scenarios?

Mode	leapp	leapp-repo
default	leapp from PR	latest released leapp-repo
on demand	leapp from PR	leapp-repo build from master
on demand	leapp from PR	specific build of leapp-repo

default is run when a PR in leapp is created on demand are triggered with a comment in a PR

[fernflower]

Hi @TomasTomecek ! For upstream tests we are always testing with cutting-edge leapp-repo master builds, so it's

Mode	leapp	leapp-repo
default	leapp from PR	leapp-repo build from master
on demand	leapp from PR	specific build of leapp-repo

For leapp-repository testing we have the same logic (and are running the same set of tests). For leapp-repository the functionality packit has now is enough, as leapp-repository package requires leapp to be installed, so we can get away with installing just leapp-repository-from-pr.

Mode	leapp-repo	leapp
default	leapp-repo from PR	leapp build from master
on demand	leapp-repo from PR	specific build of leapp

[TomasTomecek]

We have decided to go with the #1972 as a solution. Leaving this open as a low-prio RFE.

[majamassarini]

If anyone still need this feel free to reopen it.