On February 13, 2018 12:52 pm, Jakub Ruzicka wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Tristan Cacqueray <tdeca...@redhat.com> wrote:On February 12, 2018 8:59 am, Javier Pena wrote: [snip]My only doubt is why this does not show up as "NOT_REGISTERED" in Zuul as it did before.This is because we changed check_job_registration to False in zuul.conf to make Zuul always queue new job. We did that because during previous nodepool outage, zuul would fail with NOT_REGISTERED when no slaves where online (zuul(v2) only register job for available labels). Perhaps we could add a check for missing jjb job in zuul.yaml, or revert that check_job_registration back to true.I was previsously confused by NOT_REGISTERED on wrong configuration too, but it's still better than having the job stuck. That said, I didn't know howto debug this error, someone with experience told me howto fix based on guesswork. So do I understand it correctly that Zuul has no good way of communicating job configuration errors?
This is the design of the zuul(v2) gearman architecture, jobs only get registered when the associated label are available. So when nodepool or jenkins get restarted, it can take a few minutes before slave are online, and any change getting queued in that period will get the NOT_REGISTERED error.
Isn't this possibly an issue to be solved in upstream Zuul? Something like returning CONFIG_ERROR that is clickable and leads to a log of config errors.
The only way would be to prevent adding unknown job to the pipeline in the first place. Though this would a temporary measure until the migration to zuul(v3) which does exactly that by default. Regards, -Tristan
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list email@example.com http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org