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 <dkli...@redhat.com> 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 <davidda...@redhat.com>
> 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 <dkli...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> 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 <dkli...@redhat.com>
>>>> 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
>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Reply via email to