[Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

Thu Mar 8 16:48:46 UTC 2018

I set up the pulp_file tests to install pulp 3.0-dev (although we could
change this to nightly builds once those are being built):

https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/.travis/install.sh#L6

In the situation you mentioned, we’d merge the PR to pulp and then rerun
the PR tests against the corresponding pulp_file PR. I’d like to make the
PR tests required in pulp_file (unless anyone objects).

David

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> +1 pulpcore +0 pulp_file
>
> -1 Other plugins. I'm thinking about the situation where we need to fix a
> bug with a PR to pulpcore and to a plugin. How is the version of pulpcore
> determined for runnning the plugin tests? In the past, we used nightly
> builds, so plugins would have to wait 24 hours after pulpcore merge just to
> run the tests correctly. Even if the test runner checks out HEAD and runs
> against that, each plugin should choose to add this check at their own
> pace.
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 03/02/2018 03:20 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
>>
>> I had neglected to write up the temporary enable/disable part of the
>> issue, so I just updated it here:  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379
>>
>> In short, one of the pulp org owners (ipanova, ttereshc, rchan, jortel,
>> bmbouter) can temporarily enable/disable required checks. This issue would
>> also add this process to both the pulp2 and pulp3 docs.
>>
>> What do you all think about an idea like this?
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to enabling checks for the 'pulp' and 'pulp_file' repos in Github
>>> with the ability to temporarily disable them. I wrote up this issue here to
>>> do that:  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379
>>>
>>> I think we should enable these because we have a human-enforced policy
>>> that expects failed checks to not be merged, but in practice code that is
>>> merged breaks things that quality checks also identified. I think Pulp
>>> would benefit from a stronger pre-merge enforcement of our existing checks.
>>> In the case where our quality checks are failing, I'm hoping we can focus
>>> on fixing them before continuing on with the merge in all but exceptional
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +0 on required github-enforcement, +1 to a strict human-enforced policy
>>>> about tests passing for PR merges
>>>>
>>>> Reason being, an issue has occurred which would block valid PRs twice
>>>> within the last month.  The first being the test certs expiring on January
>>>> 25th, the second being when we switched the PR unittest runners over to new
>>>> versions of Fedora this morning.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not against the idea by any means, I'm just not entirely convinced
>>>> that the exceptions requiring intervention will be very infrequent, and I
>>>> can imagine it leading to a fair amount of frustration.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:34 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 to enabling the checks for the core pulp repos in Github. The only
>>>>> concern I have is that perhaps something happens outside of our control
>>>>> (e.g. Travis goes down) and we can’t merge PRs. In those cases though, we
>>>>> can temporarily disable checks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to adjust my proposal to only be for core, and not a
>>>>>> requirement for any plugin. I think the plugin policy is something the
>>>>>> committers should decide along with their users. I overall believe enabling
>>>>>> these kinds of checks is a good idea so I encourage plugins do it. We
>>>>>> should make sure each team has a github admin in place who could make such
>>>>>> a change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like option 1, which to retell my understanding means that we'll
>>>>>> enable github to require the checks to pass and you can't merge or push
>>>>>> without them passing. Is that good, would there be any -1's for a change on
>>>>>> core like this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To share my perspective about plugins being in the Pulp organization,
>>>>>> they are there only for a clear association with Pulp on github. Any open
>>>>>> source plugin that creates value with Pulp and does it with a debatable
>>>>>> level of responsibility towards its users I think is probably ok to
>>>>>> include. I don't expect them to give up any control or autonomy if they do
>>>>>> that. The benefit of bringing these different plugin communities closer
>>>>>> together through the organization is hopefully towards common services like
>>>>>> automated testing and such over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Milan Kovacik <mkovacik at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Option 1:  Nothing merges without passing PR runner tests, ever,
>>>>>>> even if the issue is rooted in the configuration or infrastructure of the
>>>>>>> test runners or an expired certificate etc.  This would light a fire to get
>>>>>>> these issues resolved ASAP because nothing can happen without them.
>>>>>>> I like this option for the same reasons Daniel mentioned; it also
>>>>>>> implies an up-to-date infrastructure and better reliability: both false
>>>>>>> negative and false positive (test/build) failures will still happen in all
>>>>>>> the three options regardless, but at least false negatives won't be ignored.
>>>>>>> This might also help catching environment issues sooner in the
>>>>>>> process (such as a third-party library update causing a legitimate failure
>>>>>>> because of e.g backwards incompatibility).
>>>>>>> When it comes to plugin independence, we could state that only
>>>>>>> plugins conforming with these (core) PR criteria can be "adopted" and
>>>>>>> tagged as Pulp-approved/compatible and kept under the Pulp project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> milan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeremy, I don't think David was continuing our line of discussion
>>>>>>>> on policy, but rather rebutting the original idea that Github's "required
>>>>>>>> checks" be enforced for all plugins.  That goes back to the whole
>>>>>>>> difference between having a policy that requires green tests and making it
>>>>>>>> physically impossible to merge PRs without them.  Maybe some plugins want a
>>>>>>>> policy and some plugins are fine with hard required checks on Github, but
>>>>>>>> the latter shouldn't be enforced on everyone - is what I think David was
>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, my understanding is that pulp_deb is not strictly under our
>>>>>>>> control, but that we're hosting it specifically to let misa use our QA
>>>>>>>> infrastructure, and because we might want to productise it at some point in
>>>>>>>> the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Regarding the plugin repos, last year we talked about plugins
>>>>>>>>> being completely autonomous (aside from abiding by our Code of Conduct).
>>>>>>>>> Wouldn’t setting the required checks for projects like pulp_file,
>>>>>>>>> pulp_python, pulp_deb, etc violate this autonomy? In other words, shouldn’t
>>>>>>>>> we let plugin teams decide their own policy and what checks to enable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are pulp_file, pulp_python, pulp_deb, and so on autonomous
>>>>>>>>> projects? The fact that they're hosted on GitHub under the pulp
>>>>>>>>> organization [1] indicates that they're under our control. Since they're
>>>>>>>>> under our control, we get to set the rules. If any of these projects really
>>>>>>>>> are autonomous, then somebody please kick them out of the pulp organization.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I was writing paychecks to a team of devs, and they refused to
>>>>>>>>> adopt basic QA processes for their projects, I'd happily fire the entire
>>>>>>>>> dev team. I can't be the only one who's had this thought.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing listPulp-dev at redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180308/c17dd84f/attachment.htm>