Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Investigate why deployer updates 2i2c staging and not 2i2c $HUB_NAME staging #5185

Closed
3 tasks
jnywong opened this issue Nov 25, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed
3 tasks

Comments

@jnywong
Copy link
Member

jnywong commented Nov 25, 2024

Context

When dealing with https://2i2c.freshdesk.com/a/tickets/2479, I noticed that our GH action to deploy from our infrastructure repo that was triggered by #5182 is updating the 2i2c staging hub and not the 2i2c ucmerced staging hub.

See the relevant deployer command in https://github.com/2i2c-org/infrastructure/actions/runs/11976687183/job/33392976328#step:5:58

Task list

Tasks

Definition of Done

No response

@sgibson91
Copy link
Member

We actually don't need to do an investigation, I know exactly why this is happening.

We had a design principle that each cluster would only have one staging hub on it, and if you were on a shared cluster, you would share the staging hub. Therefore the deployer only looks for one staging hub per cluster by design. But we've been terrible at enforcing this, as evidenced by the ucmerced-staging hub (which was originally supposed to be temporary I think, but no timeline was put on that so obviously it didn't get removed).

I had a chat with @yuvipanda a while ago about a project where I would refactor all this code and the CI/CD pipeline, decouple the support deployment from the staging deployment, and permit more than one staging hub. And I'd like to do this work before September next year, i.e. RSECon25, where I intend to submit a talk I gave at JupyterCon about our CI/CD system.

@sgibson91
Copy link
Member

I will close this out in favour of #5186

@jnywong
Copy link
Member Author

jnywong commented Nov 25, 2024

Thanks for the info! I guess it's just "one of those things" that's not written down anywhere because we had the intention to fix it, and it would have been useful to know when dealing with 2i2c $HUB_NAME staging support.

@sgibson91
Copy link
Member

Tbf, the principle is documented here and it's noted that 2i2c is a special case because it has a staging and dask-staging https://infrastructure.2i2c.org/reference/ci-cd/hub-deploy/#upgrade-support-and-staging-upgrade-support-and-staging-hub-helm-charts-on-clusters-that-require-it

It's another case of we wrote a policy and didn't enforce it

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants