Bug 541780
| Summary: | FEAT: INFO test to scan the /var/log/messages file, check for Errors and Warnings ? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Certification Program | Reporter: | YangKun <ykun> |
| Component: | redhat-certification-hardware | Assignee: | Nobody <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | rhcert qe <rhcert-qe> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 1.0 | CC: | gnichols, rlandry, tfu, yshao |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-10-15 00:04:32 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 734570 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 733415 | ||
hts/v7 already pulls the section of /var/log/messages from when tests are running into the result logs. If the the test does not complete, there are no passing results recorded. Is this feature request to add the entire log to the results somewhere? It seems like this could involve quite a lot or reading on the part of the reviewers, even with highlighting. One possibility would be for v7 to look for unmatched begin/end log markings, but there are quite a few possible causes for this (ctrl-C for example), and there's no guarantee a soft-lockup would produce a unmatched entry. Assuming a mismatched entry is highlighted, would the reviewer fail the certification? Nope, not adding the entire log from /var/log/messages to the INFO test.
actually, I was hoping if v7 could just scan the /var/log/messages file, looking for some "keywords", like "bug/error/warning" etc. If any of these keywords were found, then add a warning sign in the INFO test's output, something like:
"Warning: the 'error' message was found in /var/log/message"
so the catalog may highlight it for reviewers, and then reviewers may proceed to check the details in the sysreport/sosreport tarballs.
How about instead we do this on the catalog side? (In reply to comment #3) > How about instead we do this on the catalog side? works for me, what reviewers want is to highlight those messages so we won't miss them. Already assigned to catalog workflow, may take some extra effort as the sysreport won't by default extract out the system logs. Criteria on this should be updated to be text highlighting of the system log that is part of the results.xml output. We do not need to extract this file from the sosreport. Currently we have only allowed hardware and output selections, we'll need to add this 3rd option in the UI and xsl. I am not clear where is the system log in results.xml? In the results.xml it can be found in the system tag similar to ~ <test> <run> <attachment> </attachment> <system> <----- here; this is the system log during the run. </system> <output> </output> </run> </test> This part will need to be a link like output is and can be subjected to the same text highlighting during view. Marking depends on bz#734570; this should simply be a matter of text highlighting during the render the xpath in comment #11. This product has been discontinued or is no longer tracked in Red Hat Bugzilla. |
Is it ok to let the INFO test to scan the /var/log/messages file, check for Errors and Warnings ? And then record these messages in it's output, so the catalog may pick it up and highlight them to reviewers ? I was approached by a support issue complaining "the machine was certified but there're 'soft lockup' messages in var/log/messages", details could be found in: https://engineering.redhat.com/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=54713 Our functional tests all passed on that machine, the vendor's engineer who did the testing did not mention the 'soft lockup' issue at all, and from the reviewer's point of view, that machine is ok to be certified. but I do agree that 'soft lockup' message looks suspicious.