Skip to content

Change default boot mode to UEFI for tests#1151

Draft
KKoukiou wants to merge 1 commit intorhinstaller:mainfrom
KKoukiou:convert-tests-to-uefi-default
Draft

Change default boot mode to UEFI for tests#1151
KKoukiou wants to merge 1 commit intorhinstaller:mainfrom
KKoukiou:convert-tests-to-uefi-default

Conversation

@KKoukiou
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Update all references to use inverted logic.
Also remove @run_boot('efi') decorators from test files as EFI is now default.

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary of Changes

Hello @KKoukiou, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request fundamentally alters the testing environment's default boot mode from BIOS to UEFI. This change simplifies test configuration by making UEFI the implicit boot mode, thereby reducing the need for explicit declarations in individual test cases. The core logic for determining the boot environment has been updated to reflect this new default, ensuring consistency and forward compatibility with modern system architectures.

Highlights

  • Default Boot Mode Change: The default boot mode for tests has been switched from BIOS to UEFI, streamlining test execution for modern systems.
  • Inverted Logic for Boot Mode Flag: The is_efi flag has been replaced with is_bios across the codebase, and its logic inverted, to align with UEFI becoming the default.
  • Removal of Redundant Decorators: Explicit @run_boot('efi') decorators have been removed from numerous test files, as tests will now default to UEFI boot mode.
  • Temporary Test Runner Adjustment: A temporary change in the test/run script ensures that the *efi* scenario now triggers BIOS tests, acknowledging the global default flip to UEFI.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request changes the default boot mode for tests from BIOS to UEFI. This involves inverting the logic for checking the boot mode (from is_efi to is_bios) and updating default values. The changes are applied consistently across the test suite infrastructure. As part of this, redundant @run_boot("efi") decorators are removed from tests, since EFI is now the default. The changes look good and align with the PR's goal. I have one suggestion to simplify the test skipping logic for improved readability and maintainability.

Comment on lines +80 to +83
if self.is_bios and "bios" not in boot_modes:
self.skipTest("Skipping for BIOS boot mode")
elif not self.is_bios and "efi" not in boot_modes:
self.skipTest("Skipping for EFI boot mode")
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

This logic for skipping tests based on the boot mode can be simplified to be more concise and avoid repetition. By determining the current firmware mode first, you can use a single if statement to check if it's in the allowed boot_modes.

Suggested change
if self.is_bios and "bios" not in boot_modes:
self.skipTest("Skipping for BIOS boot mode")
elif not self.is_bios and "efi" not in boot_modes:
self.skipTest("Skipping for EFI boot mode")
firmware = "bios" if self.is_bios else "efi"
if firmware not in boot_modes:
self.skipTest(f"Skipping for {firmware.upper()} boot mode")

Update all references to use inverted logic.
Also remove @run_boot('efi') decorators from test files as EFI is now
default.
@KKoukiou KKoukiou force-pushed the convert-tests-to-uefi-default branch from 39f3542 to d995c7e Compare January 27, 2026 11:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant