chore: update Fedora base image from version 41 to 43

[nestoracunablanco]

Update GitHub Actions workflow to use Fedora 43 (1.6) instead of Fedora 41.

Most of s390x tests are now passing, so it is safe to move to the newer Fedora version.

jira-ticket:

NONE

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated build system VM configuration to Fedora 43 for improved compatibility and access to updated system libraries.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: c9e62ad8-2e6b-4104-8993-220c04613e22

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4fa833a and 751686e.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .github/workflows/component-builder-publish.yml
• .github/workflows/component-builder.yml

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Two GitHub Actions workflow files are updated to target Fedora 43 instead of Fedora 41 by upgrading the FEDORA_IMAGE artifact name, FEDORA_VERSION environment variable, and base image download URL paths.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Fedora Version Upgrade .github/workflows/component-builder-publish.yml, .github/workflows/component-builder.yml	Updated Fedora guest VM build configurations from version 41 to version 43. Changed FEDORA_IMAGE to Fedora-Cloud-Base-Generic-43-1.6.x86_64.qcow2, FEDORA_VERSION to 43, and adjusted download URL paths from /releases/41/... to /releases/43/....

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	The description covers the key change and justification, but omits several required template sections (Short description, More details, What this PR does).	Expand the description to fill required template sections: add a concise short description, provide more implementation details, and explicitly state what the PR accomplishes and why it matters.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the main change: updating Fedora base image from version 41 to 43 in GitHub Actions workflows.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot]

Report bugs in Issues

Welcome! 🎉

This pull request will be automatically processed with the following features:

🔄 Automatic Actions

• Reviewer Assignment: Reviewers are automatically assigned based on the OWNERS file in the repository root
• Size Labeling: PR size labels (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) are automatically applied based on changes
• Issue Creation: A tracking issue is created for this PR and will be closed when the PR is merged or closed
• Branch Labeling: Branch-specific labels are applied to track the target branch
• Auto-verification: Auto-verified users have their PRs automatically marked as verified
• Labels: Enabled categories: branch, can-be-merged, cherry-pick, has-conflicts, hold, needs-rebase, size, verified, wip

📋 Available Commands

PR Status Management

• /wip - Mark PR as work in progress (adds WIP: prefix to title)
• /wip cancel - Remove work in progress status
• /hold - Block PR merging (approvers only)
• /hold cancel - Unblock PR merging
• /verified - Mark PR as verified
• /verified cancel - Remove verification status
• /reprocess - Trigger complete PR workflow reprocessing (useful if webhook failed or configuration changed)
• /regenerate-welcome - Regenerate this welcome message

Review & Approval

• /lgtm - Approve changes (looks good to me)
• /approve - Approve PR (approvers only)
• /assign-reviewers - Assign reviewers based on OWNERS file
• /assign-reviewer @username - Assign specific reviewer
• /check-can-merge - Check if PR meets merge requirements

Testing & Validation

• /retest tox - Run Python test suite with tox
• /retest build-container - Rebuild and test container image
• /retest verify-bugs-are-open - verify-bugs-are-open
• /retest all - Run all available tests

Container Operations

• /build-and-push-container - Build and push container image (tagged with PR number)
  • Supports additional build arguments: /build-and-push-container --build-arg KEY=value

Cherry-pick Operations

• /cherry-pick <branch> - Schedule cherry-pick to target branch when PR is merged
  • Multiple branches: /cherry-pick branch1 branch2 branch3

Label Management

• /<label-name> - Add a label to the PR
• /<label-name> cancel - Remove a label from the PR

✅ Merge Requirements

This PR will be automatically approved when the following conditions are met:

1. Approval: /approve from at least one approver
2. LGTM Count: Minimum 2 /lgtm from reviewers
3. Status Checks: All required status checks must pass
4. No Blockers: No wip, hold, has-conflicts labels and PR must be mergeable (no conflicts)
5. Verified: PR must be marked as verified

📊 Review Process

Approvers and Reviewers

Approvers:

• dshchedr
• myakove
• rnetser
• vsibirsk

Reviewers:

• RoniKishner
• dshchedr
• rnetser
• vsibirsk

Available Labels

• hold
• verified
• wip
• lgtm
• approve

AI Features

• Cherry-Pick Conflict Resolution: Enabled (claude/claude-opus-4-6[1m])

💡 Tips

• WIP Status: Use /wip when your PR is not ready for review
• Verification: The verified label is automatically removed on each new commit
• Cherry-picking: Cherry-pick labels are processed when the PR is merged
• Container Builds: Container images are automatically tagged with the PR number
• Permission Levels: Some commands require approver permissions
• Auto-verified Users: Certain users have automatic verification and merge privileges

For more information, please refer to the project documentation or contact the maintainers.

[nestoracunablanco]

/verified
https://github.com/RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests/actions/runs/23791148427/job/69326721103?pr=4324

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3]

@coderabbitai

Test execution plan request details

CRITICAL: You MUST post an inline review comment on the first changed line of the first file.
The inline comment should contain the Test Execution Plan with the smoke tests recommendation.
Do NOT submit a formal review - just post the inline comment directly.

As an expert software testing engineer, analyze all modified files in this PR and create a targeted test execution plan.
You will post an inline review comment with the test execution plan on the first changed file.
If you fail to run or post a comment, retry.

Analysis Requirements:

1. Examine code changes in each modified file
2. Identify affected code paths, functions, and classes
3. Analyze pytest-specific elements: fixtures (scope, dependencies), parametrization, markers, conftest changes
4. Trace test dependencies through imports, shared utilities, and fixture inheritance
5. Detect new tests introduced in the PR
6. Smoke Test Impact Analysis: Determine if any changes could affect smoke tests by checking:
   • Changes to files/functions used by tests marked with @pytest.mark.smoke
   • Changes to fixtures or utilities imported by smoke tests
   • Changes to conftest.py files that may affect smoke test execution
   • Changes to core infrastructure code (utilities/, libs/) that smoke tests depend on

Your deliverable:
Your change request comment will be based on the following requirements:

Test Execution Plan

• Run smoke tests: True / False (Based on your smoke test impact analysis - True if any changes may affect smoke tests)
• path/to/test_file.py - When the entire test file needs verification
• path/to/test_file.py::TestClass::test_method - When specific test(s) needed
• path/to/test_file.py::test_function - When specific test(s) needed
• -m marker - When specific marker(s) can be used to cover multiple cases.

Guidelines:

• Include only tests directly affected by the changes
• Use a full file path only if ALL tests in that file require verification
• Use file path + test name if only specific tests are needed
• If a test marker can cover multiple files/tests, provide the marker
• Balance coverage vs over-testing - Keep descriptions minimal

Hardware-Related Checks (SR-IOV, GPU, DPDK):

When PR modifies fixtures for hardware-specific resources:

• Collection Safety: Fixtures MUST have existence checks (return None when hardware unavailable)
• Test Plan: MUST verify both WITH and WITHOUT hardware:
  • Run affected tests on cluster WITH hardware
  • Verify collection succeeds on cluster WITHOUT hardware

CRITICAL WORKFLOW COMPLETION RULES:

When responding to this test execution plan request, you MUST follow these rules EXACTLY:

1. YOUR ONLY DELIVERABLE: Post an inline review comment containing the test execution plan on the first changed line
2. THEN STOP IMMEDIATELY - Do NOT generate any additional response
3. FALLBACK ONLY: If submitting the review fails after retrying, post as a regular PR comment
4. SILENCE = SUCCESS: After successfully submitting the review, your task is complete. No confirmation needed.

ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS (violating these creates empty/meaningless reviews):

• ❌ Do NOT post acknowledgment messages like "Test execution plan posted", "Review posted successfully", "I've successfully posted"
• ❌ Do NOT mention review IDs, URLs, or confirmation of posting in the PR thread
• ❌ Do NOT add any follow-up comments after submitting the review
• ❌ Do NOT reply to confirm task completion
• ❌ Do NOT explain what you did - just do it and stop

Remember: The pull request review is visible to users. Additional comments are redundant noise.

CRITICAL: Before setting "Run smoke tests: True", you MUST use shell scripts to:
- Trace the actual fixture dependency chain from smoke tests to changed fixtures
- Verify that smoke tests actually import/use changed utilities or functions
- Confirm the dependency path exists; do NOT assume based on scope or semantics
- Be conservative: Session-scoped fixtures or infrastructure-sounding names do NOT
automatically mean smoke test impact. Only flag smoke test impact when you can
demonstrate a concrete dependency path.
WRONG: "This session-scoped storage fixture might affect smoke tests"
RIGHT: "Smoke test X uses fixture Y, which depends on the changed fixture Z"

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get PR diff to find first changed file and line
gh pr view 4322 --repo RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests --json headRefOid,files
gh api repos/RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests/pulls/4322/files | jq '.[0] | {filename, patch}'

Length of output: 1249

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
gh api repos/RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests/pulls/4322/reviews \
  --method POST \
  --field commit_id="751686ecb8579e8d8d6331404a566c1c38f81873" \
  --field event="COMMENT" \
  --field body="" \
  --field "comments[][path]=.github/workflows/component-builder-publish.yml" \
  --field "comments[][line]=16" \
  --field "comments[][side]=RIGHT" \
  --field "comments[][body]=**Test Execution Plan**

- **Run smoke tests: False**

No Python test files, pytest fixtures, utilities, or conftest files were modified. Changes are limited to GitHub Actions workflow environment variables updating the Fedora base image version from 41 to 43. There is no dependency path from any smoke test or test file to these workflow changes."

Length of output: 1735

---

---

🧠 Learnings used

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-16T10:28:54.212Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when determining smoke test impact for test execution plans, only set "Run smoke tests: True" if there is a verified, traceable dependency path from smoke tests to the changed code. Session-scoped fixtures or infrastructure-sounding changes do NOT automatically imply smoke test impact - the dependency chain must be explicitly verified using shell scripts before recommending smoke test execution.

---

Learnt from: jpeimer
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-22T15:56:00.157Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when responding to test execution plan requests from openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3, do NOT use "REQUEST_CHANGES" review type if the PR author has already marked the PR as verified (e.g., with `/verified` command). Test execution plans are informational guides, not blocking requirements. Use COMMENT event for informational test plans, or only REQUEST_CHANGES if there are actual code issues that need to be addressed before merging.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-16T14:00:59.076Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when responding to test execution plan requests from openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3, CodeRabbit must post ONLY an inline review comment on the Files Changed tab and then stop immediately without generating any follow-up comments in the PR discussion thread. No acknowledgment messages, no confirmation of posting, no explanation - silence after posting the inline review equals success. Additional comments create empty/meaningless reviews that clutter the PR.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 3062
File: conftest.py:333-333
Timestamp: 2025-12-16T20:11:03.645Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when determining smoke test impact for changes affecting py_config["os_login_param"], follow this verification methodology: (1) Find all smoke tests: `rg "pytest.mark.smoke" --type=py -B2 | grep "def test_"`, (2) For each smoke test file, search for VM creation patterns: `rg "VirtualMachineForTests|running_vm|VirtualMachineForTestsFromTemplate|wait_for_ssh|check_ssh_connectivity"`, (3) Trace the dependency chain: smoke test → VirtualMachineForTests/running_vm() → wait_for_ssh_connectivity() (default enabled) → vm.login_params property → py_config["os_login_param"][vm.os_flavor], (4) Check utilities/virt.py for login_params usage: `rg "os_login_param|login_params" utilities/virt.py -C3`. Any smoke test creating VMs with default SSH connectivity checks (running_vm with check_ssh_connectivity=True) depends on os_login_param, even if the test doesn't directly reference it.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-09-29T19:05:24.987Z
Learning: The test execution plan for PR `#1904` focuses on cluster-type conditional logic where nmstate functionality is bypassed on cloud clusters (Azure/AWS) but fully functional on bare-metal/PSI clusters, requiring different test strategies for each environment type.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 3062
File: conftest.py:333-333
Timestamp: 2025-12-16T15:09:49.597Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when conftest.py or utilities/bitwarden.py changes affect py_config["os_login_param"], smoke test impact must be determined by: (1) finding all smoke tests using `rg "pytest.mark.smoke"`, (2) checking each for VM creation patterns (VirtualMachineForTests, running_vm, VirtualMachineForTestsFromTemplate), (3) tracing whether running_vm is called with default check_ssh_connectivity=True, which accesses vm.login_params property that reads py_config["os_login_param"][vm.os_flavor]. The dependency chain is: smoke test → VM creation → running_vm → wait_for_ssh_connectivity → vm.login_params → os_login_param. Any smoke test creating VMs with SSH connectivity (the default) depends on os_login_param.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-16T14:06:22.391Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when posting test execution plan inline review comments using GitHub API, the full test execution plan content must go in the `comments[].body` field (which appears on Files Changed tab), NOT in the top-level `body` field (which appears in PR discussion thread). The top-level `body` field should be omitted or left empty to avoid posting redundant comments in the PR discussion thread.

---

Learnt from: dshchedr
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 4118
File: utilities/database.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-17T01:32:13.674Z
Learning: In RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests, maintainer dshchedr prefers CodeRabbit to post targeted inline comments on the Files changed tab for each applicable location rather than aggregating multiple issues into a single discussion thread.

---

Learnt from: dshchedr
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 4118
File: utilities/database.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-17T01:32:13.674Z
Learning: In RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests, maintainer dshchedr prefers CodeRabbit to post targeted inline comments on the Files Changed tab at each applicable location rather than aggregating multiple issues into a single PR discussion thread reply.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 2469
File: utilities/sanity.py:139-142
Timestamp: 2025-11-08T07:36:57.616Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, user rnetser prefers to keep refactoring PRs (like PR `#2469`) strictly focused on moving/organizing code into more granular modules without adding new functionality, error handling, or behavioral changes. Such improvements should be handled in separate PRs.

---

Learnt from: yossisegev
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 3358
File: tests/network/sriov/test_sriov.py:21-21
Timestamp: 2026-01-07T09:52:22.771Z
Learning: For PRs that only remove or modify pytest markers (like removing pytest.mark.post_upgrade) without changing test logic in openshift-virtualization-tests, collection verification using `pytest --collect-only` is sufficient. Full test execution is not required to verify marker-only changes.

---

Learnt from: EdDev
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 3612
File: tests/network/user_defined_network/ip_specification/test_ip_specification.py:10-10
Timestamp: 2026-01-26T20:29:54.623Z
Learning: In the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when introducing STD (Standard Test Definition) PRs that define test case structure without implementation, it's acceptable and intentional to use `__test__ = False` to block pytest collection until the tests are fully implemented in a follow-up PR. The STD workflow involves: (1) defining test structure, markers, and documentation first, (2) implementing the actual test logic and removing the collection blocker in a subsequent PR.

---

Learnt from: servolkov
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 1776
File: libs/net/node_network.py:25-31
Timestamp: 2025-08-20T23:43:28.117Z
Learning: In the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests project, servolkov's team always uses bare metal (BM) clusters with IPv4 setup in their testing environment, making defensive checks for IPv4 data presence potentially redundant in their networking code.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 3371
File: scripts/tests_analyzer/compare_coderabbit_decisions.py:199-289
Timestamp: 2026-01-13T10:06:14.822Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, user rnetser prefers to keep pagination loops inline rather than extracting them into generic helper functions when the loops have different URL patterns and unique post-processing logic, as the inline approach improves readability and makes each endpoint's behavior more explicit.

---

Learnt from: rnetser
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 3228
File: .coderabbit.yaml:30-41
Timestamp: 2026-01-05T10:33:55.037Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, user rnetser prefers minimal pre-merge checks in CodeRabbit configuration: only docstrings enforcement (80% threshold) is needed, not title or description checks.

---

Learnt from: jpeimer
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 1160
File: tests/storage/storage_migration/test_mtc_storage_class_migration.py:165-176
Timestamp: 2025-06-17T07:45:37.776Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, user jpeimer prefers explicit fixture parameters over composite fixtures in test methods, even when there are many parameters, as they find this approach more readable and maintainable for understanding test dependencies.

---

Learnt from: jpeimer
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 3571
File: tests/storage/storage_migration/utils.py:158-167
Timestamp: 2026-01-25T13:18:26.819Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, user jpeimer prefers to avoid nitpicky style changes (e.g., removing `.keys()` from dict membership checks) because verifying every change is expensive. Be cautious about suggesting low-impact stylistic improvements that require verification overhead.

---

Learnt from: akri3i
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 1210
File: tests/virt/cluster/general/mass_machine_type_transition_tests/conftest.py:24-64
Timestamp: 2025-06-23T19:28:20.281Z
Learning: In OpenShift Virtualization mass machine type transition tests, the machine type glob pattern "pc-q35-rhel8.*.*" is intentionally hard-coded in the kubevirt_api_lifecycle_automation_job as it's used only once for this specific test case, with plans to update it in the future if the job needs to support other machine types.

---

Learnt from: RoniKishner
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 1411
File: utilities/os_utils.py:246-279
Timestamp: 2025-07-22T17:13:59.166Z
Learning: In the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests repository, CentOS preferences follow the format "centos-stream<version>" (e.g., "centos-stream9", "centos-stream10"). The generate_instance_type_centos_os_matrix function correctly uses regex to extract numeric versions and constructs the latest version string in the same format as the input preferences for proper comparison.

---

Learnt from: SiboWang1997
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 1566
File: tests/global_config_x86_64.py:29-29
Timestamp: 2025-07-25T01:59:02.180Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repo, the s390x architecture still relies on Fedora 41 images, while only x86_64 is updated to Fedora 42 in PR `#1566`.

---

Learnt from: vamsikrishna-siddu
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 2199
File: tests/storage/test_online_resize.py:108-113
Timestamp: 2025-09-28T14:43:07.181Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repo, PR `#2199` depends on PR `#2139` which adds architecture-specific OS_FLAVOR attributes to the Images.Cirros class (OS_FLAVOR_CIRROS for x86_64/ARM64, OS_FLAVOR_FEDORA for s390x), enabling conditional logic based on the underlying OS flavor in tests.

---

Learnt from: servolkov
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 2838
File: .github/workflows/net-utils-builder-staging.yml:37-37
Timestamp: 2025-11-25T01:56:54.902Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repository, when renaming container images that are built and used by GitHub Actions workflows, the changes must be done sequentially: first merge the workflow files (.github/workflows/) that update the image name in the CI/CD pipelines, then update the code references (like constants.py and manifest files) in a follow-up PR. This prevents the old workflow from running with mismatched image names during the transition.

---

Learnt from: vamsikrishna-siddu
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 2199
File: tests/storage/test_online_resize.py:108-113
Timestamp: 2025-09-28T14:43:07.181Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repo, PR `#2199` depends on PR `#2139` which adds the OS_FLAVOR attribute to the Images.Cirros class, making Images.Cirros.OS_FLAVOR available for conditional logic in tests.

---

Learnt from: vsibirsk
Repo: RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests PR: 2045
File: tests/virt/cluster/vm_lifecycle/conftest.py:46-47
Timestamp: 2025-09-15T06:49:53.478Z
Learning: In the openshift-virtualization-tests repo, large fixture refactoring efforts like the golden image data source migration are handled incrementally by directory/team ownership. The virt/cluster directory is handled separately from virt/node, tests/infra, tests/storage, etc., with each area managed by relevant teams in follow-up PRs.

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3]

/retest all

Auto-triggered: Files in this PR were modified by merged PR #4346.

Overlapping files

.github/workflows/component-builder-publish.yml
.github/workflows/component-builder.yml

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3]

/retest all

Auto-triggered: Files in this PR were modified by merged PR #4389.

Overlapping files

.github/workflows/component-builder-publish.yml
.github/workflows/component-builder.yml

[nestoracunablanco]

@rnetser @RoniKishner @myakove @dshchedr @vsibirsk Does this PR looks good to you? Any extra steps you need from my side?