Miloš Prchlík
Miloš Prchlík
Splitting work into multiple PRs makes sense to me.
Unrelated failures, merging.
@martinhoyer Would it make sense to use the `result` key, similarly to how is used in test metadata? I.e. if I wish to (temporarily) ignore a check, I'd set its...
> @happz hmm not sure. Afaik we don't want to change the result of the check itself. True, wrong place, `check-result` test key is the right one. > Other idea...
> > Per-check control can be added later, I believe, if needed. > > I was thinking more about doing one or the other. i.e. either specifying it as part...
> I would find it useful to have the setting per test. I am not an active `tmt` user currently, but I see our plans often have a mixture of...
It would be wise to look into what the tests are doing: one of the purposes of the test images is to provide precached metadata for package managers. If this...
Feels like re-inventing `yum-repository` module of Ansible, https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/ansible/builtin/yum_repository_module.html#examples :) If nothing else, the page could provide nice guidance on WRT required fields and default values for the rest. But to...
A couple of points discussed on Tuesday in tmt hacking session: a new plugin might easily turn into a duplication of what `yum_repository` Ansible module is doing already, which is...
> @happz one question, in the [related issue ](https://github.com/teemtee/tmt/issues/2877)with the patch it's used `tmt -a provision -h local` which IIUC it's the local host already executing tmt, in this case...