I am also in favour of hosting fixtures. Eventually we'd also need to update our tests and workflows in the docs that point to the fedorapeople.orf fixtures.
-------- Regards, Ina Panova Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:03 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > I agree with @ttereshc that having fixtures hosted somewhere provides > value. > > @bmbouter, your proposal sounds like a good idea. Can you see if it's > feasible this week? > > David > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:17 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I'm +1 on stopping the use of fixtures on fedora people (see some >> reasoning below). I'd like to offer to contact the folks who host other >> Pulp infrastructure ( https://osci.io/ ) to inquire if they could >> standup an auto-refreshing container to serve fixtures. This would pull the >> container every time it changes, checking every few min, from wherever we >> publish it to. Maybe we use https://fixtures.pulpproject.org/ What do >> you think? >> >> Here's some reasoning about why I believe Pup should discontinue its >> fedorapeople use for fixtures going forward: >> >> * The fedorapeople servers are configured with a Content-Type that >> incorrectly advertises gzip content as already compressed to cause clients >> to "auto-unzip". While this is nice for fedorapeople users, it's an >> issue for Pulp testing because the expected hashes don't match when it is >> expecting the content as-is, and yet the webserver instructs the client to >> uncompress it first. They won't change the default so we have to open >> tickets to have the "pulp portion of fedorapeople's configs" fixed to >> advertise the content like a normal webserver should. This is further >> complicated by ... >> >> * Very few people have access to it because it's the place where the >> Pulp2 production bits are hosted. So we probably can't open it up to a >> broader group. This means that we're architecturally we can't have more >> people involved. To me this is a concern. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:01 AM Mike DePaulo <mikedep...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> quba42 does have a point: We can publish the fixtures image to quay (or >>> other registries), but then host it locally like the `pfixtures` command >>> does. >>> >>> Another option (technology-wise) is to upload to an S3 bucket or other >>> object storage. It would cost a small amount of $ per month. >>> >>> -Mike >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:30 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I personally prefer to keep fixtures published somewhere, fedorapeople >>>> or not, doesn't matter. >>>> It is convenient to refer to in situations which are not related to >>>> feature development or functional testing: >>>> - when one files a redmine issue and provides steps to reproduce >>>> - when one works with, say, Katello, or any other related project and >>>> needs to try/test something quickly >>>> - when one tries to help some user remotely and ask to sync this or >>>> that. >>>> >>>> It's not a strong reason, it's just a matter of convenience, in my >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:31 AM Quirin Pamp <p...@atix.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have grown used to always running the fixtures container locally in >>>>> my pulplift boxes using the pfixtures command (essential when working on >>>>> new fixtures). >>>>> >>>>> This command could be made a bit more flexible (right now it always >>>>> runs in the foreground and always uses the latest container image from >>>>> quay.io), but those would be trivial changes. >>>>> >>>>> As a result, I personally have no problems with retiring the fixtures >>>>> on fedorapeople.org completely. >>>>> >>>>> The disadvantage of the approach is that it requires either >>>>> downloading the (pretty large) fixtures container from quay.io, or >>>>> building it locally. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quirin (quba42) >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com <pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com> on >>>>> behalf of David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>> *Sent:* 28 April 2020 22:19:23 >>>>> *To:* Pulp-dev <pulp-dev@redhat.com> >>>>> *Subject:* [Pulp-dev] fedorapeople.org fixtures >>>>> >>>>> Our Jenkins jobs for Pulp 2 are disabled and that also includes the >>>>> job that builds the fixtures and publishes them to fedorapeople.org[0]. >>>>> With the new pulp-fixtures container[1], it's less essential that we have >>>>> fixtures published somewhere. I think the two options we have are to >>>>> either >>>>> retire the fedorapeople.org fixtures and remove them, or to move >>>>> where the job runs and possibly the place where they are hosted. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> [0] https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/fixtures/ >>>>> [1] https://quay.io/repository/pulp/pulp-fixtures >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mike DePaulo >>> >>> He / Him / His >>> >>> Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp >>> >>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> >>> >>> IM: mikedep333 >>> >>> GPG: 51745404 >>> <https://www.redhat.com/> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
