-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
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
Enabling Robottelo for IPv6 Testing #14160
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can you add some validators for these?
de39a8c
to
ae209be
Compare
e97ea7d
to
1c2a4a4
Compare
8929c60
to
925fb05
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not 100% sold on the implemented approach to dynamically update the hostname based on a single setting.
My suggestion would be to extend the settings that point to certain hostnames, to contain both versions, so the fixtures/tests could pick the appropriate one.
SETTING:
SOME_SERVER_RESOURCE:
IPV4: foo.bar.ipv4.baz
IPV6: foo.bar.ipv6.baz
we could also implement some "default" flag (like we do in broker
with providers) to save ourselves from having to be explicit about the IP version in scenarios where we don't care.
29e11d1
to
7072ef7
Compare
@rplevka The hook implementation isnt really helping here as its resetting all the settings after the Coming back to your first concern which is having two different settings is not idealistic because then you have lot of handling(if conditioning) throughout robottelo to choose between v4 or v6 instance based on the network execution we are doing v4 or v6. Trust me it would be a lot of code changes. With the current approach, the setting names would remain the same and only the values/hostnames would change behind the scenes, even one doesn't need to change the value/hostname to switch. The only switch is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK - although it's not perfect yet, the main goal seems to be completed - deployment of ipv6 server is possible and nothing else seems to be broken.
The sanity regression testing is successfully verified for Ipv4 after recent changes. An Ipv6 was tested previously and it was successful too. CC: @JacobCallahan @devendra104 , I think we need to merge the changes in CI for this PR to me merged. Especiallly conf related changes which wont also impact existing IPv4 pipelines. |
3712de9
to
21d5c81
Compare
|
PRT Result
|
@JacobCallahan We should be good to merge the PR now as the PRT is passing This should not need CI MR to merged as we are taking care of it from dynaconf validators. |
I'm going to merge this now. @ogajduse if there is anything you'd still like addressed for this post-merge, please write it down and create an issue for it to be resolved later. I'd like to move this forward so we can flesh out things live. |
* Enabling Robottelo for IPv6 Testing * Enabling broker context managers for ipv6 network * Translating URLs for Ipv6 * Sanity Testing fixes for Ipv6 * Review Fixes * Removed the explicit http proxy teardowns * Git checks fixes
Enabling Robottelo for IPv6 Testing (#14160) * Enabling Robottelo for IPv6 Testing * Enabling broker context managers for ipv6 network * Translating URLs for Ipv6 * Sanity Testing fixes for Ipv6 * Review Fixes * Removed the explicit http proxy teardowns * Git checks fixes
* Enabling Robottelo for IPv6 Testing * Enabling broker context managers for ipv6 network * Translating URLs for Ipv6 * Sanity Testing fixes for Ipv6 * Review Fixes * Removed the explicit http proxy teardowns * Git checks fixes
Problem Statement
Enabling IPv6 switching in Robottelo Automation
Solution
Followup PRs, coming next:
Broker Pending(Not blocking this PR from merge):
Related Issues