Include reboot required indication for non-Suse distros

[wweellddeerr]

What does this PR change?

It includes reboot required indication for non-Suse distros.

GUI diff

No difference.

• DONE

Documentation

• No documentation needed: only internal and user invisible changes

• DONE

Test coverage

• Unit tests were added

• DONE

Links

Fixes https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/issues/22813
RFC: uyuni-project/uyuni-rfc#83

• DONE

Changelogs

Make sure the changelogs entries you are adding are compliant with https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/wiki/Contributing#changelogs and https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/wiki/Contributing#uyuni-projectuyuni-repository

If you don't need a changelog check, please mark this checkbox:

• No changelog needed

If you uncheck the checkbox after the PR is created, you will need to re-run changelog_test (see below)

Re-run a test

If you need to re-run a test, please mark the related checkbox, it will be unchecked automatically once it has re-run:

• Re-run test "changelog_test"
• Re-run test "backend_unittests_pgsql"
• Re-run test "java_pgsql_tests"
• Re-run test "schema_migration_test_pgsql"
• Re-run test "susemanager_unittests"
• Re-run test "javascript_lint"
• Re-run test "spacecmd_unittests"

[github-actions]

👋 Hello! Thanks for contributing to our project.
Acceptance tests will take some time (aprox. 1h), please be patient ☕
You can see the progress at the end of this page and at https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/pull/7941/checks
Once tests finish, if they fail, you can check 👀 the cucumber report. See the link at the output of the action.
You can also check the artifacts section, which contains the logs at https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/pull/7941/checks.

If you are unsure the failing tests are related to your code, you can check the "reference jobs". These are jobs that run on a scheduled time with code from master. If they fail for the same reason as your build, it means the tests or the infrastructure are broken. If they do not fail, but yours do, it means it is related to your code.

Reference tests:

• https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/actions/workflows/acceptance_tests_secondary_parallel.yml?query=event%3Aschedule

• https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/actions/workflows/acceptance_tests_secondary.yml?query=event%3Aschedule

KNOWN ISSUES

Sometimes the build can fail when pulling new jar files from download.opensuse.org . This is a known limitation. Given this happens rarely, when it does, all you need to do is rerun the test. Sorry for the inconvenience.

For more tips on troubleshooting, see the troubleshooting guide.

Happy hacking!
⚠️ You should not merge if acceptance tests fail to pass. ⚠️

[github-actions]

Suggested tests to cover this Pull Request

• srv_reportdb
• proxy_as_pod_basic_tests
• min_config_state_channel_api
• srv_scc_user_credentials
• min_project_lotus
• minkvm_guests
• min_rhlike_monitoring
• min_bootstrap_api
• min_action_chain
• srv_advanced_search
• minssh_move_from_and_to_proxy
• min_salt_formulas_advanced
• min_salt_minion_details
• min_salt_install_package
• buildhost_bootstrap
• min_check_patches_install
• srv_cobbler_profile
• min_salt_openscap_audit
• min_config_state_channel
• min_bootstrap_negative
• srv_cobbler_distro
• min_salt_install_with_staging
• srv_custom_system_info
• min_cve_id_new_syntax
• buildhost_docker_auth_registry
• min_rhlike_remote_command
• min_salt_software_states
• srv_monitoring
• proxy_branch_network
• allcli_software_channels_dependencies
• srv_power_management_api
• proxy_register_as_minion_with_script
• min_deblike_ssh
• proxy_cobbler_pxeboot
• min_virthost
• min_custom_pkg_download_endpoint
• min_rhlike_salt
• srv_restart
• min_ansible_control_node
• srv_power_management
• min_recurring_action
• min_rhlike_ssh
• min_deblike_monitoring
• allcli_reboot
• srv_maintenance_windows
• min_salt_lock_packages
• min_bootstrap_reactivation
• minssh_action_chain
• min_cve_audit
• min_salt_pkgset_beacon
• min_change_software_channel
• srv_user_configuration_salt_states
• min_deblike_remote_command
• min_ssh_tunnel
• min_rhlike_openscap_audit
• min_config_state_channel_subscriptions
• srv_datepicker
• min_deblike_salt
• min_monitoring
• min_rhlike_salt_install_package_and_patch
• minssh_bootstrap_api
• min_salt_user_states
• srv_menu
• min_salt_mgrcompat_state
• srv_docker_cve_audit
• allcli_system_group
• min_retracted_patches
• allcli_action_chain
• min_activationkey
• proxy_retail_pxeboot_and_mass_import
• minssh_salt_install_package
• srv_distro_cobbler
• sle_ssh_minion
• min_salt_migration
• allcli_overview_systems_details
• min_bootstrap_ssh_key
• min_empty_system_profiles
• buildhost_osimage_build_image
• min_salt_minions_page
• allcli_software_channels
• min_deblike_salt_install_with_staging
• srv_manage_activationkey
• allcli_config_channel
• srv_group_union_intersection
• srv_manage_channels_page
• min_deblike_salt_install_package
• minssh_ansible_control_node
• srv_virtual_host_manager
• srv_power_management_redfish
• srv_rename_hostname
• buildhost_docker_build_image
• min_salt_formulas
• sle_minion
• allcli_sanity
• min_bootstrap_script
• min_timezone
• min_move_from_and_to_proxy
• min_deblike_openscap_audit

[parlt91]

Thumbs up from my side. Java part looks good. Thank you for tacking this.

[meaksh]

Thanks for this PR! Python/Salt part looks good to me 👍

For SSH minions, where beacons are not really available, I guess getting this flag from the result of a "Package Refresh" action makes sense.

BTW: I would consider to squash some of the commit messages.

[srbarrios]

@wweellddeerr Would it make sense to include some scenario to validate this at End to End level?

[wweellddeerr]

@wweellddeerr Would it make sense to include some scenario to validate this at End to End level?

@srbarrios, I included some scenarios to validate it. Could you please review them, or maybe suggest someone else from the QE team? I'm not allowed to merge the PR without an approval from QE.

[srbarrios]

There are not web elements that we can wait, instead of waiting for a fixed number of seconds?

[wweellddeerr]

It expects the text as the result of a salt command (pillar.get). In this case, there's nothing in the web UI that we could wait for. An alternative approach would be running a refresh_pillar with wait=True. However, this approach might give the wrong impression that a refresh_pillar is required for the changes to be applied. What would you prefer in this case?

As a side note, it's worth mentioning that this test is flaky. It was breaking inconsistently before this change, and the changes in this PR are unrelated.

[srbarrios]

Approving to don't block you here.
But please consider my suggestions, and fix the comment here