Eric Helms
Eric Helms
> Also, after this `find_checks` is only used as `add_steps(find_checks(:root_user))` which really is a single check. Should that be replaced by an explicit `add_step(Checks::RootUser)` as well and drop `find_checks`? I...
> In #892 I've introduced a basic "test that the expected steps are present" check -- should that be enhanced to verify the change in here is valid? I got...
This now includes https://github.com/theforeman/foreman_maintain/pull/897 to show that the tests work before and after
Rebased and updated tests for this structure
> Looks like `find_checks` is now unused: > > ``` > $ rg find_checks > README.md > 336: steps.concat(find_checks(:default)) > > test/lib/support/definitions/scenarios/present_upgrade.rb > 18: add_steps(find_checks(:default)) > 95: add_steps(find_checks(:post_upgrade_checks)) > >...
Tests are passing - this is ready to go now.
I assume that maintenance mode was put in place in the procedure as a safety mechanism in case service stop, or start only completes partially and prevents the application from...
Do we know why sync plan disable and enable fails? Is it a known singular issues or a class of issues?
Enable / disable are built into maintenance mode primarily for upgrade? Rather than solving a general purpose problem?
@evgeni As you are deep re-factoring backup/restore, what are your thoughts on if we should do this or close it?