fix "tail 800 lines: journald" flake

[Luap99]

The test calls podman run -d followed by podman logs. There is no
guarantee the the container or conmon has written all its output.
Adding an extra podman wait should fix this.

Fixes #14362

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

[vrothberg]

LGTM, nice catch!

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Luap99, vrothberg

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [Luap99,vrothberg]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[rhatdan]

Could have just removed the -d from command above, but this works wel also. I am surprised this one is not firing all the time.
/lgtm
/hold

[Luap99]

No I do not want to remove the -d. The command prints 1000 lines and they should not be in the test logs by default.

[edsantiago]

LGTM, but do we have any clue why this test runs podman with -d? If there's no reason, can it just be removed? If there's a reason, can it be documented? Same goes for the previous test, the 99 one, which is less likely to race but I just don't like the possibility even in principle. Nice catch BTW.

[rhatdan]

You could redirect the output to /dev/null. But anyways...

[Luap99]

You could redirect the output to /dev/null. But anyways...

Then the test will no longer work, it must print the lines in the container and we cannot redirect the output from the podman command inside the testing suite.

[edsantiago]

No I do not want to remove the -d. The command prints 1000 lines and they should not be in the test logs by default.

They are anyway, or at least 800 of them are (the output of podman logs is 800 lines). I'm OK with the -d, but I'd like to see this reasoning in a comment so future maintainers don't have to have this same conversation. And I would especially like to see the same wait added to the earlier 99 test.

[Luap99]

Removed the -d from the other test since it just prints 3 lines.
Added a comment why we use -d for the 800 lines test.

[mheon]

/lgtm

[edsantiago]

/hold cancel
/lgtm

...and I'd just like to use this PR to confirm that #13936 is working nicely:

SKIPPING: This is a doc- and/or test-only PR with no changes under test/system