[Pulp-dev] pulp 3 PR testing with pulp-smash

[Dennis Kliban]

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 <daviddavis at 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 <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at 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 <dkliban at 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 at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180222/f64c962f/attachment.htm>