PAPR updates #4422
PAPR updates #4422
Conversation
The project was renamed to PAPR, see: https://github.com/projectatomic/papr
.papr.yml
Outdated
| @@ -15,16 +15,17 @@ packages: | |||
| - gcc | |||
| - python-pip | |||
| - python-devel | |||
| - libffi-devel | |||
| Some of these jobs are automatically triggered, e.g., Travis and Coveralls. | ||
| Other jobs need to be manually triggered by a member of the | ||
| Some of these jobs are automatically triggered, e.g., Travis, PAPR, and | ||
| Coveralls. Other jobs need to be manually triggered by a member of the |
|
|
||
| These files are used by [PAPR](https://github.com/projectatomic/papr), | ||
| It is very similar in workflow to Travis, with the test | ||
| environment and test scripts defined in a YAML file. |
| . | ||
| ├── .papr.yml | ||
| ├── .papr.sh | ||
| └── .papr.inventory |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is there an empty .papr.inventory file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Heh, it's not empty, it was just renamed without any changes, so there's no diff ➕/➖ to show. The file is there: https://github.com/jlebon/openshift-ansible/blob/pr/papr/.papr.inventory.
|
Triggered the aos-ci-tests to exercise it... then we can try to merge via the normal procedure. |
|
I added another commit to add some more documentation to the YAML itself and fix up the context string. ⬆️ |
.papr.yml
Outdated
| @@ -19,9 +30,10 @@ packages: | |||
| - openssl-devel | |||
| - redhat-rpm-config | |||
|
|
|||
| context: 'fedora/25/atomic | origin/v3.6.0-alpha.1' | |||
| context: 'fedora/25/atomic | origin/v3.6.0-alpha.2' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How is this context key used?
Could we somehow remove the duplication of this value here and in OPENSHIFT_IMAGE_TAG?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it's not very intuitive I admit. It refers to the name of the green checkmark in the GitHub interface. (I recently added a blurb in the README to clarify this.)
There's no way to make these hold variables for now, though it's an interesting suggestion. I filed projectatomic/papr#42.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it necessary to have the version in the checkmark text? How about context: fedora/25/atomic? If one wants to know the version, it will be in the config and should be in the job logs perhaps, WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose not. Done in latest commit ⬇️ (squashed with the last commit). I initially did this because we used to run both v1.5.0 and v3.6.0 on each PR. When 1.5 was released, this was split out as well.
|
LGTM |
|
all changes localized to fedora ci jobs so not going to run other ci jobs. |
|
bot, retest this please |
|
@jlebon any idea what happened to the fedora test here? That's all I actually care about passing here. |
|
@sdodson Not sure, it looks like it installs alright, but the tests are repeatedly failing until we time out: I can try taking a look this afternoon, though someone more well-versed in OCP might be able to troubleshoot faster. :) |
|
@jlebon revert back to the previous alpha version and see if the problem goes away then we'll know it's a regression in origin not elsewhere? |
Add a section in `repo_structure.md`, and rename from `redhat-ci` to `PAPR` and point to the new upstream repo in `pull_requests.md`. Closes: openshift#4078
Don't duplicate the actual image tag used in the context. Just print it in the logs instead. That way there's no risk of it being outdated when we bump the tag in the YAML.
|
@sdodson OK, dropped out the commit that bumped the alpha version. Let's see what happens. |
|
@sdodson Looking good now. ⬇️ Maybe let's merge this and then we can open another issue to track down the regression in |
A few fixes and updates to get the PAPR jobs working again.
Also fixes #4078 and #4418.