Add `whatprovides` resolution to `verify-install` plugin by vaibhavdaren · Pull Request #4804 · teemtee/tmt

vaibhavdaren · 2026-04-17T14:57:29Z

Use whatprovides lookup for file-based dependencies

Allow resolving packages from file paths (e.g. /usr/bin/make)
by leveraging DNF provides/whatprovides instead of requiring
explicit package names.

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request implements the resolution of virtual RPM provides to actual package names using 'rpm -q --whatprovides' during artifact preparation and installation verification. In 'verify_installation.py', replace the dictionary comprehension for 'verify_map' with a loop using 'setdefault' and 'tmt.utils.uniq' to prevent overwriting entries when multiple virtual provides resolve to the same package name.

Allow resolving packages from file paths (e.g. /usr/bin/make) by leveraging DNF provides/whatprovides instead of requiring explicit package names.

vaibhavdaren · 2026-04-21T11:12:36Z

The test failures are unrelated to the change. Flaky Test : /tests/execute/restart/with-reboot 🔎

/packit retest-failed

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:24:13Z

+        The script must emit one line per capability in the same order as the input.
+        Each line is either a valid NEVRA string for a found capability, or an error
+        message (e.g. ``no package provides <cap>``) for one that is not provided by
+        any installed package.


The capabilities name is neither generic enough, nor is it correct in the dnf context. For dnf context, provides could be a better fit for what this is.

changed to provides.
context: for choosing capability. We already have a provider.

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:25:36Z

+        :param capabilities: Capabilities to resolve — package names, file paths, or
+            virtual provides (e.g. ``make``, ``/usr/bin/make``, ``pkgconfig(openssl)``).


Why the em-dash. Personally, if one uses em-dash, it feels like they did not consider the wording at all.

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:26:51Z

+
+        :param capabilities: Capabilities to resolve — package names, file paths, or
+            virtual provides (e.g. ``make``, ``/usr/bin/make``, ``pkgconfig(openssl)``).
+        :returns: A shell script whose stdout contains one NEVRA line per capability.


Again, too technical. The whose stdout is not relevant and too literal. See the other docstrings

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:27:24Z

+        :param capabilities: Capabilities to resolve — package names, file paths, or
+            virtual provides (e.g. ``make``, ``/usr/bin/make``, ``pkgconfig(openssl)``).
+        :returns: A shell script whose stdout contains one NEVRA line per capability.
+        :raises NotImplementedError: If the package manager does not support this query.


See the raises just below here. Be consistent.

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:28:06Z

            result[package] = parts[1] if len(parts) == 2 else SpecialPackageOrigin.UNKNOWN
        return result

+    def resolve_capabilities(self, capabilities: Iterable[str]) -> 'dict[str, Optional[Version]]':


Incorrect quotations of the return type

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:41:06Z


+    def resolve_capabilities(self, capabilities: Iterable[str]) -> 'dict[str, Optional[Version]]':
+        """
+        Map each capability to the :py:class:`Version` of the installed package providing it.


Suggested change

Map each capability to the :py:class:`Version` of the installed package providing it.

Map each capability to the :py:class:`Version` of the packages providing it.

The package is not installed when you need to call this

Multiple packages can provide the same provides, particularly if the user did not add relevant constraints

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:43:05Z

+        try:
+            output = self.guest.execute(script)
+            stdout = output.stdout
+        except tmt.utils.RunError as exc:
+            stdout = exc.stdout


This is just wrong isn't it? Can't figure out what you are trying to catch here.

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:45:06Z

+        except tmt.utils.RunError as exc:
+            stdout = exc.stdout
+
+        result: dict[str, Optional[Version]] = dict.fromkeys(caps, None)


Move this at the top and you can avoid the intermediate caps. I commented about this very recently didn't I?

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:46:28Z

+            with contextlib.suppress(ValueError):
+                result[cap] = RpmVersion.from_nevra(line.strip())


No contextlib.suppress. There is a special case being handled, then document it properly

Sorry - just seeing this now, but prolly made a duplicate comment: #4804 (comment)

LecrisUT · 2026-04-21T13:54:08Z

+    def resolve_capabilities(self, *capabilities: str) -> ShellScript:
+        # Reuse the existing rpm --whatprovides script; output is one NEVRA per line,
+        return self._construct_presence_script(*[Package(c) for c in capabilities])


Not a good approach, see the other comments. The repoquery might give you more flexibility on the format and allow you to get more information to process further like the repoid.

We now , run repoquery for each of the packages in a script. Which is actually easier to parse. Addressed in 0fb9b50.

AthreyVinay · 2026-04-21T14:34:28Z

+
+        result: dict[str, Optional[Version]] = dict.fromkeys(caps, None)
+        for cap, line in zip(caps, (stdout or '').splitlines()):
+            with contextlib.suppress(ValueError):


This supresses parsing errors (and others too) - ambigous. Suggest adding a debug() log here:

for cap, line in zip(caps, (stdout or '').splitlines()): try: result[cap] = RpmVersion.from_nevra(line.strip()) except ValueError: self.debug(f"Could not resolve capability '{cap}': {line.strip()}")

vaibhavdaren self-assigned this Apr 17, 2026

vaibhavdaren added this to planning Apr 17, 2026

vaibhavdaren moved this to implement in planning Apr 17, 2026

vaibhavdaren added ci | full test Pull request is ready for the full test execution plugin | artifact Related to the `prepare/artifact` plugin. labels Apr 17, 2026

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Apr 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tmt/steps/prepare/verify_installation.py Outdated

vaibhavdaren force-pushed the vaibhav-discover-only-providers-whatprovides branch from 725fbcf to 1d6cf0d Compare April 17, 2026 16:05

Base automatically changed from vaibhav-discover-only-providers to main April 17, 2026 16:32

vaibhavdaren force-pushed the vaibhav-discover-only-providers-whatprovides branch 5 times, most recently from 9914613 to d189b00 Compare April 20, 2026 10:32

psss added this to the 1.72 milestone Apr 20, 2026

vaibhavdaren mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2026

Link the Artifact Verification Plugin for discover only Providers #4714

Open

vaibhavdaren added 2 commits April 20, 2026 23:29

Use whatprovides lookup for file-based dependencies

e08283d

Allow resolving packages from file paths (e.g. /usr/bin/make) by leveraging DNF provides/whatprovides instead of requiring explicit package names.

address comments from code review

0fb9b50

vaibhavdaren force-pushed the vaibhav-discover-only-providers-whatprovides branch 5 times, most recently from d1de079 to e08283d Compare April 21, 2026 00:32

vaibhavdaren moved this from implement to review in planning Apr 21, 2026

vaibhavdaren marked this pull request as ready for review April 21, 2026 00:37

psss changed the title ~~add whatprovides resolution to verify-install plugin~~ Add whatprovides resolution to verify-install plugin Apr 21, 2026

LecrisUT reviewed Apr 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

LecrisUT self-assigned this Apr 21, 2026

AthreyVinay reviewed Apr 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

vaibhavdaren requested a review from psss April 21, 2026 17:09

		:param capabilities: Capabilities to resolve — package names, file paths, or
		virtual provides (e.g. ``make``, ``/usr/bin/make``, ``pkgconfig(openssl)``).

	Map each capability to the :py:class:`Version` of the installed package providing it.
	Map each capability to the :py:class:`Version` of the packages providing it.

		with contextlib.suppress(ValueError):
		result[cap] = RpmVersion.from_nevra(line.strip())

Conversation

vaibhavdaren commented Apr 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vaibhavdaren commented Apr 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

vaibhavdaren commented Apr 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading