Maybe we should explain a bit what "scenario" is (or can be) and maybe provide an example.

Maybe we should explain a bit what "scenario" is (or can be) and maybe provide an example.

Sorry, I'm still unsure why scenario is used instead of e.g. more specific test case name.

It has something to do with https://pagure.io/greenwave/pull-request/96.

I'm not an expert either. But for what I understood is useful to differentiate different scenarios (you don't say :D) for the same testcase. It is used for Fedora openQA... and it is used mainly for composes.
Some discussion happened in here in the past: https://pagure.io/greenwave/pull-request/393
and examples are in the fedora policies: https://greenwave.fedoraproject.org/api/v1.0/policies

Maybe let's just say it can help to distinguish different use case for the same test case.

Can you help me put together a sentence that would make it more clear?

Can you help me put together a sentence that would make it more clear?

What about something like this here:
Optionally, an additional scenario field can be specified to distinguish different use cases that have the same test case. It can be useful to have a more granular set of tests.
In case of two results with the same test case, but different scenario, these results will be treated independently.
The same thing will happen for system_architecture and system_variant.

--
feel free to reword this

What about something like this here:

Hmm, I'm not sure if adds any additional information.

Is it unclear from my description that the scenario is used to distinguish results further?

Mmm yeah, but you first introduce scenarios, without telling what they are and what's the purpose, just "to filter results by scenario name"... which I find confusing... Maybe you can write:
"an additional scenario field can be specified to distinguish different use cases that have the same test case. It can be useful to have a more granular set of tests."
and then just:
"The rule requires all matching latest test results with distinct triplets system_architecture, system_variant and scenario (unless specific value is requested) to pass or be waived."

@lholecek any update on this?

@gnaponie I changed the description a bit.

I'm ok with merging this +1