tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
dn = $( cd " $( dirname " $0 " ) " && pwd )
# shellcheck source=../common/libtest.sh
. " ${ dn } /../common/libtest.sh "
export repo = $PWD /repo
export treefile = $PWD /config/manifest.json
treeref = $( jq -r .ref < " ${ treefile } " ) ; export treeref
# ensures workdir sticks around so we can debug if needed
export RPMOSTREE_PRESERVE_TMPDIR = 1
pyedit( ) {
local f = $1 ; shift
# this is a bit underhanded; we read it in as yaml, since it can read json
# too, but serialize back as json (which is also valid yaml). that way we
# can use all these functions transparently with yaml and json treefiles
cat >pyedit.py <<EOF
import sys, json, yaml
tf = yaml.safe_load( sys.stdin)
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
${ 1 }
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
json.dump( tf, sys.stdout)
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
EOF
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
python3 ./pyedit.py < " ${ f } " > " ${ f } .new "
rm -f ./pyedit.py
mv " ${ f } " { .new,}
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
}
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
treefile_pyedit( ) {
pyedit " ${ treefile } " " $@ "
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
}
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
treefile_set( ) {
treefile_pyedit "tf['" " $1 " " '] = $2 "
2016-12-09 01:31:20 +03:00
}
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
treefile_del( ) {
treefile_pyedit "
try:
del tf[ '$1' ]
except KeyError:
pass"
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
}
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
treefile_set_ref( ) {
treefile_set ref " $@ "
rpm-ostree compose tree --print-only " ${ treefile } " > tmp.json
treeref = $( jq -r .ref < tmp.json) ; export treeref
rm tmp.json
}
treefile_append( ) {
treefile_pyedit "
if '$1' not in tf:
tf[ '$1' ] = $2
else :
tf[ '$1' ] += $2 "
}
2020-04-14 23:44:07 +03:00
treefile_remove( ) {
treefile_pyedit " tf[' $1 '].remove( $2 ) "
}
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
# for tests that need direct control on rpm-ostree
export compose_base_argv = " \
--unified-core \
--repo= ${ repo } \
2020-04-14 23:44:04 +03:00
--cachedir= ${ test_tmpdir } /cache"
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
# and create this now for tests which only use `compose_base_argv`
mkdir -p cache
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
runcompose( ) {
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
# keep this function trivial and the final command runasroot to mostly steer
# clear of huge footgun of set -e not working in function calls in if-stmts
runasroot rpm-ostree compose tree ${ compose_base_argv } \
--write-composejson-to= compose.json " ${ treefile } " " $@ "
}
# NB: One difference from cosa here is we don't use `sudo`. I think there's an
# issue with sudo under parallel not getting signals propagated from the
# controlling terminal? Anyway, net result is we can end up with a bunch of
# rpm-ostree processes leaking in the background still running. So for now, one
# has to run this testsuite as root, or use unprivileged. XXX: to investigate.
runasroot( ) {
if has_compose_privileges; then
" $@ "
else
runvm " $@ "
fi
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
}
tests/compose: Target FCOS 31, move off of PAPR
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
2019-12-22 01:42:09 +03:00
# This function below was taken and adapted from coreos-assembler. We
# should look into sharing this code more easily.
runvm( ) {
if [ ! -f tmp/cache.qcow2 ] ; then
mkdir -p tmp
qemu-img create -f qcow2 tmp/cache.qcow2 8G
LIBGUESTFS_BACKEND = direct virt-format --filesystem= xfs -a tmp/cache.qcow2
fi
echo " export test_tmpdir= ${ test_tmpdir } " > tmp/env
# automatically proxy RPMOSTREE env vars
$( env | ( grep ^RPMOSTREE || :) | xargs -r echo export ) >> tmp/env
echo " $@ " > tmp/cmd.sh
#shellcheck disable=SC2086
qemu-kvm \
-nodefaults -nographic -m 2048 -no-reboot -cpu host \
-kernel " ${ fixtures } /supermin.build/kernel " \
-initrd " ${ fixtures } /supermin.build/initrd " \
-netdev user,id= eth0,hostname= supermin \
-device virtio-net-pci,netdev= eth0 \
-device virtio-scsi-pci,id= scsi0,bus= pci.0,addr= 0x3 \
-object rng-random,filename= /dev/urandom,id= rng0 -device virtio-rng-pci,rng= rng0 \
-drive if = none,id= drive-scsi0-0-0-0,snapshot= on,file= " ${ fixtures } /supermin.build/root " \
-device scsi-hd,bus= scsi0.0,channel= 0,scsi-id= 0,lun= 0,drive= drive-scsi0-0-0-0,id= scsi0-0-0-0,bootindex= 1 \
-drive if = none,id= drive-scsi0-0-0-1,discard= unmap,file= tmp/cache.qcow2 \
-device scsi-hd,bus= scsi0.0,channel= 0,scsi-id= 0,lun= 1,drive= drive-scsi0-0-0-1,id= scsi0-0-0-1 \
-virtfs local,id= cache,path= " ${ fixtures } " ,security_model= none,mount_tag= cache \
-virtfs local,id= testdir,path= " ${ test_tmpdir } " ,security_model= none,mount_tag= testdir \
-serial stdio -append "root=/dev/sda console=ttyS0 selinux=1 enforcing=0 autorelabel=1"
if [ ! -f tmp/cmd.sh.rc ] ; then
fatal "Couldn't find rc file, something went terribly wrong!"
fi
return " $( cat tmp/cmd.sh.rc) "
2016-12-03 02:07:08 +03:00
}
