Bug 2258085
| Summary: | Remove Python Mock Usage | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Aoife Moloney <amoloney> |
| Component: | Changes Tracking | Assignee: | Michel Lind <michel> |
| Status: | ON_QA --- | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | amoloney, awilliam, maxwell, michel |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 2387673 | ||
|
Description
Aoife Moloney
2024-01-12 15:10:33 UTC
Hi there, we have passed the 'Testable' checkpoint for changes. Do you have any update to share on the progress of this change? How is the cleanup progressing? Thanks! Aoife Hi Aoife! We have some packages cleaned up - see https://pagure.io/michel-slm/python-mock-drawdown/blob/main/f/pull-requests for details - but likely won't be able to finish them all in time to properly retire python-mock in Fedora 40. We plan to keep chugging along, but it might make it easier to retarget this to Fedora 41. We'll still clean up the specs in Rawhide, but once F40 requires updates to be submitted to Bodhi we won't be touching F40 specs anymore. OK, deferring (Aoife is on vacation). Thanks. Hi @sallima, how is this change looking for F41? Are you still on track for this release or does this change need to be re-targeted? It needs to be in code complete shape before we enter Beta freeze next Tuesday 27th August so an update on where this work is at would be much appreciated. Thanks! Hi Aoife. This likely needs to be retargeted to F42. I'll start aggressively whacking the leftover packages, since they have been given a lot of notice Thanks Michel! Tracker bug and wiki page have all been updated to retarget F42. Hi Michel, how goes this change for F42? The testable deadline is coming up in about two weeks, on Feb 4th, and changes need to be in good shape at this point https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/#_change_process_milestones Please let me know if you need to defer this to F43, otherwise if youre good to go for the change to be ready to meet the testable requirements, please update the status of the tracker bug to MODIFIED. Thanks! Aoife Let's defer it again to F43 - apologies! Ack, no problem - thank you for confirming Michel. I will update the change now accordingly. Thanks! Dear change owner, this is a reminder that your change is required to be 100% code complete by August 26, which is the start of beta freeze. Please provide a status update on your change in the Incomplete Changes Report if you are not able to move your change to 'ON_QA' before this date. If you need to defer your change to the next Fedora release, please let me know and I will reassign this bug and the change page. Thank you kindly. Dear change owner, this is a reminder that your change is required to be 100% code complete by August 26, which is the start of beta freeze. Please provide a status update on your change in the Incomplete Changes Report if you are not able to move your change to 'ON_QA' before this date. If you need to defer your change to the next Fedora release, please let me know and I will reassign this bug and the change page. Thank you kindly. Hi michel, how goes this change for F44? The testable deadline is today, February 03, 2026, and changes need to be in good shape at this point https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/#_change_process_milestones Please let me know if you need to defer this to F45, otherwise if you're good to go for the change to be ready to meet the testable requirements, please update the status of the tracker bug to MODIFIED. Thanks! Hello! Doing a final push to fix the remaining packages - otherwise new usages will keep popping up So, you just modified one of my packages for this. Which is fine, but - I don't recall ever receiving any customized communication about it before. There's no bug report for it against the package (resultsdb_conventions) that I can find. I don't think I ever got a direct email about it, or a ping on chat, or anything. If I'd got anything like that I probably would have fixed it long ago. It would also have been good to send the patch upstream instead of just committing it downstream. I'm the upstream as well as the downstream... (In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #14) > So, you just modified one of my packages for this. Which is fine, but - I > don't recall ever receiving any customized communication about it before. > There's no bug report for it against the package (resultsdb_conventions) > that I can find. I don't think I ever got a direct email about it, or a ping > on chat, or anything. If I'd got anything like that I probably would have > fixed it long ago. > fair point - and apologies for that. This change has been worked on, on and off, for several years now (in one of the earliest pushes we waited for weeks before merging), and partially because of dynamic BRs new packages end up using python-mock even though it's already deprecated years ago (and we don't have anything to catch it outside of initial reviews). Given the beta freeze that's looming and that we really should get to the point where we can retire python-mock (at least in rawhide) without surprising maintainers with FTBFS, I might have erred a bit too far on the 'get this done' side. > It would also have been good to send the patch upstream instead of just > committing it downstream. I'm the upstream as well as the downstream... Also fair. Though hard to scale - though it definitely helps when upstream == downstream I'm pretty sure it's been in resultsdb_conventions for years, though. I barely touch that code. |