test: ensure role gathers the facts it uses by having test clear_facts before include_role

[richm]

The role gathers the facts it uses. For example, if the user uses
ANSIBLE_GATHERING=explicit, the role uses the setup module with the
facts and subsets it requires.

This change allows us to test this. Before every role invocation, the test
will use meta: clear_facts so that the role starts with no facts.

Create a task file tests/tasks/run_role_with_clear_facts.yml to do the tasks
to clear the facts and run the role. Note that this means we don't need to
use gather_facts for the tests.

Some vars defined using ansible_facts have been changed to be defined with
set_fact instead. This is because of the fact that vars are lazily
evaluated - the var might be referenced when the facts have been cleared, and
will issue an error like ansible_facts["distribution"] is undefined. This is
typically done for blocks that have a when condition that uses ansible_facts
and the block has a role invocation using run_role_with_clear_facts.yml
These have been rewritten to define the when condition using set_fact. This
is because the when condition is evaluated every time a task is invoked in the
block, and if the facts are cleared, this will raise an undefined variable error.

Signed-off-by: Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com

Summary by Sourcery

Run the bootloader role in tests via a shared task file that clears Ansible facts before each invocation to verify the role gathers the facts it needs.

Tests:

• Add a reusable run_role_with_clear_facts task file that clears facts then runs the linux-system-roles.bootloader role, with optional failure-handling behavior.
• Update bootloader-related test playbooks to invoke the role through the new task file instead of including the role directly, and drop explicit gather_facts settings.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide

Refactors bootloader role tests to run the role through a new helper task file that clears Ansible facts before each invocation, ensuring the role gathers its own facts, while preserving control over tasks_from/public/failed_when behavior previously provided by include_role.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Introduce a reusable helper task file that clears facts then runs the bootloader role, including support for tasks_from, public, and a failed_when=false simulation.	Create tests/tasks/run_role_with_clear_facts.yml that first executes meta: clear_facts before running linux-system-roles.bootloader via include_role. Implement conditional block to simulate include_role with failed_when: false by wrapping the role in a block/rescue and ignoring failures when __sr_failed_when is explicitly false. Provide a default path that runs the role normally when __sr_failed_when is unset or true, passing through __sr_tasks_from and __sr_public variables.	tests/tasks/run_role_with_clear_facts.yml
Update existing tests to invoke the bootloader role via the new helper task file instead of including the role directly, and stop explicitly disabling fact gathering at the play level.	Replace include_role: name: linux-system-roles.bootloader with include_tasks: tasks/run_role_with_clear_facts.yml in kernel add/remove, settings, password, default, bool/null validation, and clone_kernel test workflows. Remove gather_facts: false (or true) from relevant test playbooks so that fact handling is driven by the role under test instead of the play configuration. Keep existing test logic, handlers, and variable definitions intact while routing all bootloader role invocations through the new helper.	tests/tests_add_rm.yml tests/tests_settings.yml tests/tests_password.yml tests/tests_bool_null_not_allowed.yml tests/tasks/clone_kernel.yml tests/tests_default.yml tests/tests_include_vars_from_parent.yml

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[richm]

[citest]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.90%. Comparing base (63d7c0c) to head (daecaaa).
⚠️ Report is 103 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #197      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.43%   86.90%   +8.47%     
==========================================
  Files           2        2              
  Lines         255      275      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits          200      239      +39     
+ Misses         55       36      -19     

Flag	Coverage Δ
sanity	?

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[richm]

need to update python files for new python black