Create "direct" install sub command that will be called in a posttrans on package mode installations

[yasminvalim]

TICKET: As part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BootLoaderUpdatesPhase1, for package mode installations, we will update the bootloader (copy from /usr to boot or ESP) as part of the posttrans scriptlet.

This is a slightly different path as the current update path where we have the systemd-run logic, and we notably don't have any prepared metadata.

We can start by creating a command that does a simple copy (like the scripts do) and then iterate on merging the logic between the package mode and the image mode use case.

See change and current sample/basic installation scripts:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BootLoaderUpdatesPhase1
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2/pull-request/136
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/shim/pull-request/4

See related issue: #926

[yasminvalim]

I've added some unit tests for this feature, but I'm not satisfied with the coverage. Are kola tests recommended in this case?

[HuijingHei]

Thank you @yasminvalim for working on this!
This is tracked by #927, there are many dup codes in install(), how about make them into one? WDYT?

[HuijingHei]

I've added some unit tests for this feature, but I'm not satisfied with the coverage. Are kola tests recommended in this case?

Since this is for package mode, do we want them also working on CoreOS?

[yasminvalim]

Thank you @yasminvalim for working on this! This is tracked by #927, there are many dup codes in install(), how about make them into one? WDYT?

I created a two function helpers to extract duplicate code :)
Can you take a look again and let me know what do you think about it?

[yasminvalim]

I've added some unit tests for this feature, but I'm not satisfied with the coverage. Are kola tests recommended in this case?

Since this is for package mode, do we want them also working on CoreOS?

I think there is no mention to it in the issue and jira ticket

[cgwalters]

I've added some unit tests for this feature, but I'm not satisfied with the coverage. Are kola tests recommended in this case?

Yeah, it's hard for us to cover much here with unit tests. This intersects with the work to add tmt tests here #967

[yasminvalim]

I've added some unit tests for this feature, but I'm not satisfied with the coverage. Are kola tests recommended in this case?

Yeah, it's hard for us to cover much here with unit tests. This intersects with the work to add tmt tests here #967

Thanks for the context. What do you think about the next steps for this PR? Should I proceed with merging these changes, or wait until we have more tmt test coverage in place?

[travier]

Might be good to get a test here that installs shim into a container and ensures that the files are properly setup in the right place.

[yasminvalim]

Might be good to get a test here that installs shim into a container and ensures that the files are properly setup in the right place.

I added a unit test to cover this case. Creating shim, installing, ensuring that is being copied, if is a really a file, if the content matches exactly and if the directory structure is correct. I guess we have a little bit more coverage now.

[HuijingHei]

@travier the command that we want to use is for package mode, also for image mode, is this right?

[yasminvalim]

Sorry folks, I encountered some issues with the git history on my previous branch, so I've pushed this new branch to resolve it. #1030