Bug 737882

Summary: Firstboot catches all exceptions from s-c-date and doesn't advance then
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Nils Philippsen <nphilipp>
Component: firstbootAssignee: Martin Gracik <mgracik>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 15CC: bcl, dmach, himanshu.malpande, mgracik
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: firstboot-17.0-1 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 734993 Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-09-26 12:38:57 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Nils Philippsen 2011-09-13 10:27:35 UTC 
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #734993 +++
[skip to the relevant part]
--- Additional comment from nphilipp on 2011-09-09 11:28:05 EDT ---

Meanwhile I could reproduce the problem and it's two-fold, the triggering bug is in s-c-date, but a followup one is in firstboot, specifically in its date module:

[...]
    def apply(self, interface, testing=False):
        if testing:
            return RESULT_SUCCESS

        try:
            rc = self.scd.firstboot_apply()
            if rc == 0 and self.scd.closeParent:
                return RESULT_SUCCESS
            else:
                return RESULT_FAILURE
        except:
            return RESULT_FAILURE
[...]

--> this code catches all exceptions raised from self.scd.firstboot_apply() (which makes debugging hard) and apparently (I'm guessing here) causes firstboot to not advance any further in this step (because of "return RESULT_FAILURE"?).
[...]

I think firstboot should ask the user if they want to skip that step if it catches exceptions and alternatively/additionally offer to report them to e.g. Bugzilla.
Comment 1 Martin Gracik 2011-09-20 11:14:35 UTC 
*** Bug 737368 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***