[checkbox-ce-oem] Modify dbus warm cold boot job (BugFix)

[rickwu666666]

• Modify the command called in the job
  Since we change the command name in the test-strict-confinement snap.
• Fix the wrong job name in test-plan
• Change job structure
  Make the job easier to read

Description

We modify the command in the test-strict-confinement snap. Therefore, we modify the command that is called in the job.
Also, fix the wrong job ID that is included in the test plan.

Resolved issues

N/A

Documentation

N/A

Tests

Warm-boot
https://certification.canonical.com/hardware/202304-31485/submission/359313/

Cold-boot
https://certification.canonical.com/hardware/202304-31485/submission/359311/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 40.52%. Comparing base (397306c) to head (9324e7c).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 9324e7c differs from pull request most recent head 72eeb9f

Please upload reports for the commit 72eeb9f to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1038      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   44.10%   40.52%   -3.58%     
==========================================
  Files         358      335      -23     
  Lines       38765    37365    -1400     
  Branches     6571     6348     -223     
==========================================
- Hits        17096    15143    -1953     
- Misses      21006    21585     +579     
+ Partials      663      637      -26     

Flag	Coverage Δ
contrib-provider-ce-oem	29.59% <ø> (-0.89%)	⬇️
provider-genio	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[kissiel]

Race condition with the background process scheduling found.

[LiaoU3]

+1

[baconYao]

Race condition with the background process scheduling found.

@rickwu666666 , I think you can reference this PR
#979

[rickwu666666]

I've pushed a fix for the race condition.

[stanley31huang]

In test plan, we are going to compare the logs between the reboot test, so we need to add a job to collect logs before reboot test.

[rickwu666666]

@stanley31huang , Yes you are correct. I've pushed the fix. Thanks for the review.

[kissiel]

Going through an extra snap seems unnecessary. It:

• obfuscates what is being done
• reduces clarity and makes the whole thing less readable and debuggable
• creates unnecessary dependencies

Also there's a serious race condition with Checkbox being created here that may lead to breakage of other jobs that may follow the one modified here.

[LiaoU3]

+1

[rickwu666666]

@stanley31huang,
I've pushed the fix based on our discussed yesterday.

[LiaoU3]

LGTM

[stanley31huang]

I think we should have some extra steps to reboot the system in case we failed to power control the system via test-strict-confinement snap.
Like what we did in Baoshan project https://git.launchpad.net/~baoshan-team/baoshan/+git/checkbox-provider-baoshan/tree/units/thermal/jobs.pxu

[rickwu666666]

https://certification.canonical.com/hardware/202403-33886/submission/386662/test-results/fail/
Test result of if reboot via test-strict-confinement snap failed.

[stanley31huang]

LGTM