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

Reply via email to