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

[1.9] buildkite: backport step list as list/dict #5028

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 7, 2025

Conversation

kalyazin
Copy link
Contributor

@kalyazin kalyazin commented Feb 7, 2025

Changes

Backport changes to buildkite scripts:

Reason

Allows to simplify buildkite pipeline configuration.

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • [ ] I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • [ ] I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • [ ] If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • [ ] When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • [ ] I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • [ ] I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

pb8o added 2 commits February 7, 2025 10:23
In some cases we may want to pass a complex value to a step. For
example:

  .buildkite/pipeline_pr.py \
    --step-param 'retry/automatic=[{"exit_status": "*", "limit": 2}]'

(cherry picked from commit c6add4f)
Signed-off-by: Pablo Barbáchano <[email protected]>
In c6add4f while adding support for
more complex parameters we broke passing simple strings.

While it can be worked around by quoting the string with '', that makes
the simple case more complex than it was before, and breaks previous
pipeline definitions.

Fix it so if the first character does not look like a python expression,
take the value verbatim.

Fixes: c6add4f

(cherry picked from commit cea24c5)
Signed-off-by: Pablo Barbáchano <[email protected]>
@kalyazin kalyazin self-assigned this Feb 7, 2025
@kalyazin kalyazin added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Feb 7, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.34%. Comparing base (f6f21b4) to head (acf8430).
Report is 2 commits behind head on firecracker-v1.9.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           firecracker-v1.9    #5028   +/-   ##
=================================================
  Coverage             84.34%   84.34%           
=================================================
  Files                   249      249           
  Lines                 27449    27449           
=================================================
  Hits                  23152    23152           
  Misses                 4297     4297           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 84.56% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 84.55% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 83.84% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6g.metal 80.90% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 84.54% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7g.metal 80.90% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 84.56% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 84.54% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6a.metal 83.84% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 80.90% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6i.metal 84.54% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7g.metal 80.90% <ø> (ø)

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.

@kalyazin kalyazin merged commit 1bad635 into firecracker-microvm:firecracker-v1.9 Feb 7, 2025
8 checks passed
@kalyazin kalyazin deleted the retry_1.9 branch February 7, 2025 14:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants