Bugzilla – Bug 1214485
[Build 13.4] openQA test fails in zypper_lifecycle - Error parsing ["kernel-livepatch-5_14_21-150500_11-rt", "*", "TBD"]: no time information in "TBD"
Last modified: 2023-10-23 18:29:01 UTC
## Observation openQA test in scenario sle-15-SP6-Regression-on-Migration-from-SLE15-SPx-x86_64-offline_sles15sp3_media_lp-we-basesys-srv-desk-dev-contm-lgm-wsm-pcm_all_full@64bit fails in [zypper_lifecycle](https://openqa.suse.de/tests/11896351/modules/zypper_lifecycle/steps/31) ## Test suite description The base test suite is used for job templates defined in YAML documents. It has no settings of its own. The died message is: Error parsing ["kernel-livepatch-5_14_21-150500_11-rt", "*", "TBD"]: no time information in "TBD" '/usr/lib/zypper/commands/zypper-lifecycle' exited with status 2 SCRIPT_FINISHEDAwZR8-2- at /usr/lib/os-autoinst/distribution.pm line 303. distribution::script_output(Distribution::Sle::15_current=HASH(0x55c1b7365c60), "zypper lifecycle", "timeout", 600, "proceed_on_failure", undef, "quiet", undef, ...) called at /usr/lib/os-autoinst/testapi.pm line 1100 testapi::script_output("zypper lifecycle", 600) called at sle/tests/console/zypper_lifecycle.pm line 76 ## Reproducible Fails since (at least) Build [10.3](https://openqa.suse.de/tests/11800680) ## Expected result Last good: (unknown) (or more recent) ## Further details Always latest result in this scenario: [latest](https://openqa.suse.de/tests/latest?arch=x86_64&distri=sle&flavor=Regression-on-Migration-from-SLE15-SPx&machine=64bit&test=offline_sles15sp3_media_lp-we-basesys-srv-desk-dev-contm-lgm-wsm-pcm_all_full&version=15-SP6)
Similar error in SLES 15 SP4: zypper lifecycle Error parsing ["kernel-livepatch-5_14_21-150500_11-rt", "*", "TBD"]: no time information in "TBD" '/usr/lib/zypper/commands/zypper-lifecycle' exited with status 2
Hi Liu and Patrick, this issue was already addressed on MR 304098[1], but haven't being merged yet[2]. Now we leave the LTSS field empty when we don't have a date defined, instead of writing TBD. Sorry for the inconvenience. Is there something that I can do to make the Maintenance request accepted quicker? Thanks, Marcos [1]: https://build.suse.de/request/show/304098/request_action/2355365/changes [2]: https://maintenance.suse.de/incident/30044/
(In reply to Marcos de Souza from comment #2) > Hi Liu and Patrick, > > this issue was already addressed on MR 304098[1], but haven't being merged > yet[2]. Now we leave the LTSS field empty when we don't have a date defined, > instead of writing TBD. Sorry for the inconvenience. > > Is there something that I can do to make the Maintenance request accepted > quicker? > > Thanks, > Marcos > > [1]: https://build.suse.de/request/show/304098/request_action/2355365/changes > [2]: https://maintenance.suse.de/incident/30044/ Liu, the issue was solved. Would you mind closing the bug? Thanks!
(In reply to Marcos de Souza from comment #3) > (In reply to Marcos de Souza from comment #2) > > Hi Liu and Patrick, > > > > this issue was already addressed on MR 304098[1], but haven't being merged > > yet[2]. Now we leave the LTSS field empty when we don't have a date defined, > > instead of writing TBD. Sorry for the inconvenience. > > > > Is there something that I can do to make the Maintenance request accepted > > quicker? > > > > Thanks, > > Marcos > > > > [1]: https://build.suse.de/request/show/304098/request_action/2355365/changes > > [2]: https://maintenance.suse.de/incident/30044/ > > Liu, the issue was solved. Would you mind closing the bug? > > Thanks! ok, we can close it.
Closed.