[Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

Dennis Kliban dkliban at redhat.com
Thu Mar 8 19:03:07 UTC 2018


I want to introduce an ability to specify in the commit message for
pulpcore a PR for pulp_file and a PR for pulp-smash. Travis would then
checkout pulp_file from that PR and pulp-smash from that PR and test the
pulpcore PR in combination with the 2 other PRs. This way we can test
changes that require changes in multiple repositories. How does that sound?

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b40a4117/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list