Closed hroncok closed 7 months ago
Alternatively, this can be hardcoded in all the fedora-40 configs. And keep doping that with all new ones.
Or, we can let it be dnf5 and hardcode it to dnf in all the old ones.
working on changelog entry
Hm, actually ... have you tried it works?
I only tried rendering such a template in Python. Will test to ensure.
ERROR: Config error: /etc/mock/fedora-39-x86_64.cfg: invalid syntax (
Tested with F40 and F39 and it works as expected.
For the record, the first attempt created an invalid config and no CI job seems to have noticed that. Perhaps a test should be added that the configs are at least parse-able?
@hroncok I can not find the old testing-farm run now :-/ but it already appeared failed/red actually. In this case, the tests failed because we do most of the testing on Fedora 39 host against the Fedora 38 (branched) configs (current status quo).
But in general, we don't let the test for configs fail the CI. Some of the configs are known to fail; you have to take a look manually into the logs to see the failures.
Ad tests, take a look at the failure here.
I can see Fedora-39:x86_64:/testing-farm/plans/behave | COMPLETE | OK | PASSED
now so the basic tests already passed. Merging earlier and releasing so we have it in updates-testing ASAP.
This broke my own CI strcipt. We use config_opts[f"{config_opts.package_manager}.conf"] += ...
which now fails with:
ERROR: Config error: /tmp/fedora-39-x86_64-ci.cfg: '{% if releasever|int >= 40 %}dnf5{% else %}dnf{% endif %}.conf'
Is this something we should try to fix here, or was this never actually supported?
This is evaluated by https://pypi.org/project/templated-dictionary/ so it should work.
Can you open a new issue and put there your whole config so we can reproduce it?
Is this something we should try to fix here, or was this never actually supported?
We e.g. did this in Copr: https://github.com/fedora-copr/copr/pull/3152
Fixes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2264535