[SERVER-48080] Use "Administrator" as the Powercycle user on Windows Created: 11/May/20 Updated: 06/Apr/21 Resolved: 06/Apr/21 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Testing Infrastructure |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Robert Guo (Inactive) | Assignee: | Robert Guo (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | happy_family, powercycle, tig-powercycle | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Backport Requested: |
v4.4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Update: Per Max's astute observation in the comment below, the permission issue can be fixed simply by changing the 20 places that call remote_operations.py in evergreen.yml to use the Administrator user instead of $USER. We will likely refactor the code to set an evergreen expansion and merge remote_operations into resmoke as a new subcommand. Powercycle has been failing on Windows due to an SSH permission issue. There is currently no easy way to investigate the problem due to an inability to access the ec2 instance running the powercycle test. After chatting with daniel.gottlieb, I'm postponing the work to investigate the permission issue. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Robert Guo (Inactive) [ 13/Jul/20 ] |
|
Update: I'm going to discuss the work in |
| Comment by Vlad Rachev (Inactive) [ 07/Jul/20 ] |
|
I opened |
| Comment by Kelsey Schubert [ 22/Jun/20 ] |
|
I'm happy to take these commits into the 4.4 branch since its test only and significantly increases our test coverage. Ping me in #server-release when you are ready to commit and I'll let you in. |
| Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 22/Jun/20 ] |
|
I think you might need to fix the link for At the very least you should indeed consider fixing a 100% breakage in the build to be of the highest priority. let's get it fixed in master today and then see what kelsey's opinion about a backport is this afternoon? |
| Comment by Vlad Rachev (Inactive) [ 22/Jun/20 ] |
|
We split this ticket into |
| Comment by Brooke Miller [ 18/Jun/20 ] |
|
Valid point, ian.whalen and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I spoke with robert.guo yesterday and we have a plan to shift work around (that we feel is lower priority) so that we can have a team member begin to investigate powercycle today. |
| Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 17/Jun/20 ] |
|
sorry, but Im going to go one step further here and say that this really can't be left broken. I'm markng as 4.4.0. we release once a year, fixing the powercycle tests in time for that release is just a bare minimum. brooke.miller just want to make sure you have a heads up on this so you can see if anyone on the team is working on lower prio 4.6 work possibly? |
| Comment by Kelsey Schubert [ 17/Jun/20 ] |
|
If this is relatively easy ticket, can we get it done before 4.4 GA. I feel like there are window specific issues when it comes to files management that I'd like to see more coverage with Durable History in. |
| Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 11/May/20 ] |
|
kelsey.schubert are we willing to release 4.4 without powercycle working on windows? just want to make sure 4.5 desired is correct. |