Yea, it’s a bit unclear, but Pulp 3.
David On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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
