The osci.io team is going to try to stand up fixtures.pulproject.org by May 15th. I'll post updates here also as I continue to correspond with them.
They will likely use openshift for the hosting which checks for changes every 15 minutes, so fixtures.pulproject.org would be a max of 15 minutes behind the git repo. I think this is ok since CI and developers both would be using locally hosted fixtures and these are more for convenience. If anyone feels differently please let us know. I put some updates on the ticket also https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6638 Feedback is welcome. On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:25 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote: > I filed this infrastructure ticket https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6638 for > fixtures.pulpproject.org and emailed osci.io contacts asking if they are > willing to make https://fixtures.pulpproject.org for us. I'll share back > to the thread with what they say. > > Since we're on the topic, I want to share my perspective on our docs > examples. When possible, I imagined our docs would try to use "in the wild" > examples, e.g. for RPM to use centos syncing instead of from our fixtures. > My thinking is it's a more real-world example and users would have an > easier time recognizing it as valuable. That may not always be possible > though, e.g. pulp_file may not have an "in the wild repo". Just an opinion > I wanted to share, feel free to disregard/disagree. > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:06 AM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> 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
