Really basic question, but to be clear, these are changes for Pulp 2 or Pulp 3?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > We are currently using the Jenkins GitHub PR builder plugin to perform the > API calls at the end of the job. I don't think this plugin currently > supports reporting multiple checks from one job. > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:37 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> In theory, we could have one jenkins job that makes two calls to Github’s >> status API—one for the pulpcore smash test result and one for the pulp_file >> smash test. That said, I am fine with 2 jenkins jobs too. >> >> >> David >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Would it be possible to have the required tests be Pulp core only, but >>>> to have an expanded set of non-mandatory smash tests which includes >>>> pulp_file? >>>> >>>> Which would mean, the pulp_file smash test results would be there as a >>>> visual indicator, but wouldn't cause problems over the next few months >>>> before the plugin API is fully stabilized. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Yes we can. We would need to set it up as two separate Jenkins jobs. I >>> believe GitHub allows setting a subset of checks as gating. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> tl;dr: which set of pulp-smash tests should run against pulpcore PRs? >>>>> pulpcore + pulp_file or just pulpcore? >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy and I are working to enable a new check for PRs against Pulp's >>>>> 3.0-dev branch. This is going to be a jenkins job that installs pulpcore >>>>> from the PR and then runs pulp-smash smoke tests against it. >>>>> >>>>> The smoke tests include both pulpcore and pulp_file tests. When >>>>> testing PRs for pulp repository, should pulp_file also be installed thus >>>>> allowing pulp-smash all the tests? The other option is to not install >>>>> pulp_file and allow only the pulpcore tests to run. >>>>> >>>>> If both pulpcore and pulp_file tests are required to pass to merge a >>>>> PR, then we can get into a situation where the plugin API is intentionally >>>>> changing and the tests can't pass until the change is introduced to >>>>> pulp_file also. In such situations we could require the pulpcore-plugin >>>>> package to have it's version bumped, which would mark the build as >>>>> passing. >>>>> >>>>> If only pulpcore tests are run we could get into a situation where the >>>>> PR breaks the plugin API and we don't learn this until after the code is >>>>> merged. >>>>> >>>>> Which set of tests should run for pulpcore PRs? >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
