Re-enable pull mirror QA test in FIPS mode

assigned to @stanhu

Suggested Reviewers (beta)

The individuals below may be good candidates to participate in the review based on various factors.

You can use slash commands in comments to quickly assign /assign_reviewer @user1.

Suggested Reviewers
`@smcgivern`, `@ddavison`, `@mlapierre`, `@at.ramya`, `@a_mcdonald`

If you do not believe these suggestions are useful, please apply the label Bad Suggested Reviewer. You can also provide feedback for this feature on this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/357923.

Automatically generated by Suggested Reviewers Bot - an experimental ML-based recommendation engine created by ~"group::applied ml".

marked the checklist item I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR. as completed

changed milestone to %15.2

added FIPS Quality labels

requested review from @mlapierre

added test label

added QA label

	1 Warning
	Please add a merge request type to this merge request.

1 Message

CHANGELOG missing:

If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab FOSS, add the Changelog trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog.

If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab EE, also add the EE: true trailer to your commit message.

If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
QA	Harsha Muralidhar (`@hmuralidhar`) (UTC+5.5, 12.5 hours ahead of `@stanhu`)	Tiffany Rea (`@treagitlab`) (UTC-7, same timezone as `@stanhu`)

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

@stanhu - please add typebug typefeature, typemaintenance or a subtype label to this merge request.

typebug: Defects in shipped code and fixes for those defects. This includes all the bug types (availability, performance, security vulnerability, mobile, etc.)
typefeature: Effort to deliver new features, feature changes & improvements. This includes all changes as part of new product requirements like application limits.
typemaintenance: Up-keeping efforts & catch-up corrective improvements that are not Features nor Bugs. This includes restructuring for long-term maintainability, stability, reducing technical debt, improving the contributor experience, or upgrading dependencies.

See the handbook for more guidance on classifying.

This message was created with automation and Engineering Productivity is looking for feedback in this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/engineering-productivity/team/-/issues/43

requested review from @willmeek

added typemaintenance label

resolved all threads

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

review-qa-blocking: test report for 507eca5a

expand test summary

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                              suites summary                               |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                      | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create               | 23     | 0      | 2       | 23    | 25    | ❗     |
| Manage               | 37     | 0      | 2       | 39    | 39    | ❗     |
| Plan                 | 47     | 0      | 1       | 47    | 48    | ❗     |
| Secure               | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
| Package              | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Verify               | 12     | 0      | 1       | 12    | 13    | ❗     |
| Configure            | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Version sanity check | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Protect              | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total                | 123    | 0      | 9       | 125   | 132   | ❗     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

package-and-qa: test report for 507eca5a

expand test summary

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|                       suites summary                        |
+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|        | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total  | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

review-qa-all: test report for 507eca5a

expand test summary

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                              suites summary                               |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                      | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create               | 121    | 1      | 7       | 47    | 129   | ❌     |
| Manage               | 62     | 1      | 4       | 38    | 67    | ❌     |
| Product Intelligence | 1      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Verify               | 28     | 0      | 2       | 22    | 30    | ❗     |
| Secure               | 19     | 0      | 2       | 17    | 21    | ❗     |
| Plan                 | 6      | 0      | 0       | 1     | 6     | ❗     |
| Fulfillment          | 0      | 0      | 13      | 0     | 13    | ➖     |
| Package              | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
| Release              | 6      | 0      | 0       | 4     | 6     | ❗     |
| Configure            | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total                | 243    | 2      | 33      | 129   | 278   | ❌     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

The gitlab-qa-mirror downstream pipeline for !91856 (507eca5a) passed.

approved this merge request

requested review from @treagitlab and removed review request for @mlapierre

approved this merge request

LGTM

merged

@treagitlab, did you forget to run a pipeline before you merged this work? Based on our code review process, if the latest pipeline finished more than 2 hours ago, you should:

Ensure the merge request is not in Draft status.
Start a pipeline (especially important for Community contribution merge requests).
Set the merge request to merge when pipeline succeeds.

This is a guideline, not a rule. Please consider replying to this comment for transparency.

(Improve this message?)