Daan Regarding the obligatory provider id. I agree, but I am still trying to figure out the details. Creating distinct runs that have their own status is done by setting the 'context'. I think we would need to have two pieces to this. A provider id and an environment id.
So for example. Lets assume that my provider id is 'CloudOps' and I have two different environments, one for 'KVM' and one for 'Xen' (for example). I would then the tool would produce the following two independent CI statuses. 'CloudOps - KVM' : with a basic description of the environment. 'CloudOps - Xen' : again with a basic description of the env. ... and so on ... I am still sorting out the details here as well as making it easy for us to integrate this into the apache/cloudstack repo with the access we currently have. Adding this is 'no biggy' for me because I am building this tool as we speak, and trying to tailor it to our (ACS) needs, so this type of feedback is perfect as it allows me to adapt the tool before I get too deep. *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Will > > Gret work, especially the thing you are showing in link [4], I would like > to make an enhancement request and that is a obligatory provider id. Only > if it is no biggy for you! > Several people may decide to do a XVM on ChildrensOS for instance and so we > may be aware of an obscurity that is different. If one fails and the other > succeeds it is easily identified. > > Ilya, > > I have been playing with go and it is a very nice language for such a > simple script, though it wasn't exactly designed for it. So don't read my > comment/question as an objection. But we do have > bash,python,c#,java,javascript,xslt,sql at least. That is not counting the > build system and I am sure the hyperv has some extra windows specific > stuff. > To me it is inherent to the nature of across platform orchestration and > provisioning system so it is fine. It is something to consider. On the > other hand when bringing in new tools we don't make the choice so.... I am > ranting, I guess. > > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:38 AM, ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I see where Daan is coming from :) I thought this would be 4th, not > > exactly 7ths. > > > > I'm not against golang by any means (if anything - its my next "go" to > > language these days). > > > > Things to consider: > > > > Would notify-pr support proxy? I've been thinking on ways of > > contributing test runs, there would have to be few things i'd need to do. > > > > 1) massage the log content - such that no environment details are > > exposed, i can probably handle this with sed/awk.. > > > > 2) i'm behind multiple firewalls with no internet access. however, some > > lab environments might have a proxy, so it would be nice to have a > > support for it. > > > > Thanks > > ilya > > > > > > > > On 3/4/16 6:56 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > > > Yes, I have most of it already built and will be releasing it later > today > > > or over the weekend. The reason I chose Golang is because it can be > > cross > > > compiled to be run on any system and distributed as a single binary > with > > no > > > dependencies. This means that no one will have to worry about building > > it > > > or having to change their environment at all in order to use it. I am > > > trying to lower the barrier to entry and make it as easy as possible > for > > > people to contribute back their CI execution details. > > > > > > *Will STEVENS* > > > Lead Developer > > > > > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Will, Do you have an implementation of notify-pr? I am asking as you > > >> specify it will be implemented in golang which seems odd. It is not > > amongst > > >> the 7 or so languages already in use. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Will Stevens < > williamstev...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hey Everyone, > > >>> As I am sure most of you are aware, I have been focusing a lot on > ways > > to > > >>> get CI integrated back into the community. > > >>> > > >>> Today I build a little POC to validate some ideas and get a feel for > a > > >>> potential approach for getting CI integrated into the Github pull > > request > > >>> workflow. > > >>> > > >>> There are multiple individuals/companies focusing on CI right now > > (which > > >>> is a good thing), but there has not really been much discussion > (that I > > >> am > > >>> aware of) for how these different CI runs will push back results to > the > > >>> community. I want to make sure that nobody's work on this topic goes > > to > > >>> waste, so my goal is to provide a simple and consistent way for > > everyone > > >> to > > >>> push their results back to the community. > > >>> > > >>> Here is the basic idea (please give feedback): > > >>> - A simple cross platform command line tool with zero dependencies > will > > >> be > > >>> provided (and open sourced) which will handle the submission of the > CI > > >>> results back to the community. It is written in Golang and is > > currently > > >>> called 'notify_pr'. > > >>> - At the end of a CI execution, the CI should automate the execution > of > > >>> this tool to handle updating the appropriate PR with the results. > > >>> > > >>> Configuration can be done via the command line or through an INI > file. > > >>> Here is an example of the configuration details. The commit is the > > >>> commit that the CI just executed against. > > >>> > > >>> token = <your github token> > > >>> owner = apache > > >>> repo = cloudstack > > >>> commit = c8443496d3fad78a4b1a48a0992ce545bde299e8 > > >>> > > >>> summary_file = <a text file summary of the run> > > >>> full_detail_dir = <a directory structure to be recursively uploaded > to > > >>> object store> > > >>> full_detail_files = <a comma separated list of files to upload to > > object > > >>> store> > > >>> store_api = <swift or s3> > > >>> store_endpoint = <url endpoint> > > >>> store_identity = <keystone identity or aws access key> > > >>> store_secret = <keystone password or aws secret key> > > >>> > > >>> I have not yet implemented the object storage endpoints, but I have > > code > > >>> to do it from a different project, so I just need to add it. I will > be > > >>> able to host my CI output in a swift object store, but others may > need > > to > > >>> use AWS S3. Maybe we can get sponsorship for this storage. We will > > only > > >>> keep the logs for a window of like a week or so on the object store > so > > >> the > > >>> storage usage will not be ever growing. > > >>> > > >>> Basically, the tool takes the details of the repository you are > > >> validating > > >>> a Pull Request for and the commit you are building. It also takes > the > > >>> files you would like to push to the pull request. The summary file > > will > > >> be > > >>> shown as text in the pull request comment and the other files will be > > >>> uploaded to an object store and will be publically available for a > > period > > >>> of time (probably about a week and then get cleaned up, details TBD). > > >> The > > >>> files to be uploaded to object store could be either specified as > > >>> individual files, OR a target directory and all the files in that > > >> directory > > >>> will be recursively uploaded to the object store. > > >>> > > >>> When the tool is run, it will scan through all the open pull requests > > in > > >>> the target repository and when it finds the pull request > corresponding > > to > > >>> the commit in question, it will post the details as a comment to that > > >> pull > > >>> request. This functionality is currently working (see the attached > > >>> screenshot). I can change the formatting and such, this is just an > > >> example. > > >>> > > >>> This is still a very rough concept that I have only worked on for a > > day, > > >>> but hopefully you guys agree that it is a good start towards a > > consistent > > >>> feedback mechanism for the community to take advantage of the > different > > >>> distributed CI installations. > > >>> > > >>> Please voice your feedback and concerns. I am sure I have not > thought > > of > > >>> everything and we may still want to make fundamental changes to the > > >>> approach, but I think the concept is solid. > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Will > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Daan > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Daan >
