add ScreenSaverUnlock autotest and teach ScreenSaverRunning to log in

add ScreenSaverUnlock autotest and teach ScreenSaverRunning to log in

[sosa, 2010-03-24 00:31:47]

Ha, these came out about the same time:

http://codereview.chromium.org/1241003

I can mod yours after to use ensure_logged_in or the opp.

[petkov, 2010-03-24 00:36:35]

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004
File
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py
(right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode29
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:29:
self.system_as('DISPLAY=:0.0 xscreensaver-command -lock')
You should use site_ui.xcommand instead...

[kmixter1, 2010-03-24 00:42:10]

once desktopui_ScreenSaverRunning knows how to log itself in, feel
free to add it back into BVTs as well
(server/site_tests/suite_BuildVerify/control).

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM,  <petkov@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004
> File
> client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py
> (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode29
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:29:
> self.system_as('DISPLAY=:0.0 xscreensaver-command -lock')
> You should use site_ui.xcommand instead...
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002
>

[sosa, 2010-03-24 00:44:04]

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3003
File client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/control (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3003#newcode1
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/control:1: # Copyright (c) 2009
The Chromium OS Authors. All rights reserved.
year

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004
File
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py
(right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode13
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:13:
def system_as(self, cmd, user='chronos'):
private functions should be prefixed with __

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode28
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:28:
time.sleep(10)
Loop wait until xscreensaver program is running (and sleeping for 1 second). 
After 10 seconds without xscreensaver throw an appropriate TestFail exception

You should also perhaps lib-ize this as other tests might use it.  Something
like

site_screenlocker

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode29
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:29:
self.system_as('DISPLAY=:0.0 xscreensaver-command -lock')
On 2010/03/24 00:36:35, petkov wrote:
> You should use site_ui.xcommand instead...
> 
Should prob use xcommand in __system_as

http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode36
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:36:
time.sleep(10)
What's this sleep for?

[rginda, 2010-03-24 20:21:59]

On 2010/03/24 00:44:04, sosa wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3003#newcode1
> client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/control:1: # Copyright (c) 2009
> The Chromium OS Authors. All rights reserved.
> year
> 

Fixed.

> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004
> File
> client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py
> (right):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode13
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:13:
> def system_as(self, cmd, user='chronos'):
> private functions should be prefixed with __
> 

I moved this into site_ui, adding xsystem and xsystem_as.

> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode28
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:28:
> time.sleep(10)
> Loop wait until xscreensaver program is running (and sleeping for 1 second). 
> After 10 seconds without xscreensaver throw an appropriate TestFail exception
> 
> You should also perhaps lib-ize this as other tests might use it.  Something
> like
> 
> site_screenlocker
> 

Done, added site_login.wait_for_screensaver, since this is about waiting for the
screensaver during the initial login (or, at least, that seems like when it'll
be the most useful.)  I copied the site_login.wait_for_login_manager strategy of
measuring wall clock time.

> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode29
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:29:
> self.system_as('DISPLAY=:0.0 xscreensaver-command -lock')
> On 2010/03/24 00:36:35, petkov wrote:
> > You should use site_ui.xcommand instead...
> > 
> Should prob use xcommand in __system_as
> 

Done, see above.

> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode36
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:36:
> time.sleep(10)
> What's this sleep for?

It was left over from some earlier flailing, removed.


This patch set also removes the ScreenSaverRunning test, since this test already
covers that.  I've added ScreenSaverUnlock to the BuildVerify suite, too.

[Chris Masone, 2010-03-24 21:25:34]

You'll need to rebase and make sure this still works, but LGTM

On 2010/03/24 20:21:59, rginda wrote:
> On 2010/03/24 00:44:04, sosa wrote:
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3003#newcode1
> > client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/control:1: # Copyright (c)
2009
> > The Chromium OS Authors. All rights reserved.
> > year
> > 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004
> > File
> > client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py
> > (right):
> > 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode13
> >
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:13:
> > def system_as(self, cmd, user='chronos'):
> > private functions should be prefixed with __
> > 
> 
> I moved this into site_ui, adding xsystem and xsystem_as.
> 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode28
> >
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:28:
> > time.sleep(10)
> > Loop wait until xscreensaver program is running (and sleeping for 1 second).

> > After 10 seconds without xscreensaver throw an appropriate TestFail
exception
> > 
> > You should also perhaps lib-ize this as other tests might use it.  Something
> > like
> > 
> > site_screenlocker
> > 
> 
> Done, added site_login.wait_for_screensaver, since this is about waiting for
the
> screensaver during the initial login (or, at least, that seems like when it'll
> be the most useful.)  I copied the site_login.wait_for_login_manager strategy
of
> measuring wall clock time.
> 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode29
> >
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:29:
> > self.system_as('DISPLAY=:0.0 xscreensaver-command -lock')
> > On 2010/03/24 00:36:35, petkov wrote:
> > > You should use site_ui.xcommand instead...
> > > 
> > Should prob use xcommand in __system_as
> > 
> 
> Done, see above.
> 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002/diff/2001/3004#newcode36
> >
>
client/site_tests/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock/desktopui_ScreenSaverUnlock.py:36:
> > time.sleep(10)
> > What's this sleep for?
> 
> It was left over from some earlier flailing, removed.
> 
> 
> This patch set also removes the ScreenSaverRunning test, since this test
already
> covers that.  I've added ScreenSaverUnlock to the BuildVerify suite, too.

[rginda, 2010-03-24 21:49:40]

On 2010/03/24 21:25:34, cmasone wrote:
> You'll need to rebase and make sure this still works, but LGTM
> 

Ok, here it is post-rebase.  Seems to run ok, and AFAICT I didn't screw up the
rebase.  I'll push in few minutes, unless I hear otherwise.

[sosa, 2010-03-24 21:58:34]

LGTM here too

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:49 PM,  <rginda@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 2010/03/24 21:25:34, cmasone wrote:
>>
>> You'll need to rebase and make sure this still works, but LGTM
>
>
> Ok, here it is post-rebase.  Seems to run ok, and AFAICT I didn't screw up
> the
> rebase.  I'll push in few minutes, unless I hear otherwise.
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/1203002
>