[Pulp-dev] Moving to Github Actions

Fabricio Aguiar fabricio.aguiar at redhat.com
Mon Feb 17 20:23:50 UTC 2020


ansible-pulp and pulp_rpm_prerequisites were moved to Github Actions:
https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp/actions
https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm_prerequisites/actions

Best regards,
Fabricio Aguiar
Software Engineer, Pulp Project
Red Hat Brazil - Latam <https://www.redhat.com/>
+55 11 999652368


On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:50 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> We talked at the CI/CD meeting about Fedora Zuul and also I talked to some
> of their developers. We're concerned about some of the extra costs that
> we'd incur by using it instead of Github Actions. For one, we'd have to set
> up and maintain our own compute resource..
>
> I went ahead and updated the Github Actions epic in redmine:
>
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6065
>
> If there's no objections, I'd like to merge the Github Actions PRs for
> ansible-pulp and pulp_rpm_prerequisites PRs on February 18th to start
> testing out Github Actions.
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:59 AM Fabricio Aguiar <
> fabricio.aguiar at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> bringing in some data about CI,
>>
>> Last month, we had a considerable increase in total builds and in queue
>> time:
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>> https://travis-ci.org/pulp?tab=insights
>>
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>                                   https://travis-ci.com/pulp?tab=insights
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Fabricio Aguiar
>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
>> Red Hat Brazil - Latam <https://www.redhat.com/>
>> +55 11 999652368
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:35 PM Mike DePaulo <mikedep333 at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here are my set of thoughts on many things mentioned.
>>>
>>> TL;DR: We still need to run CI on CentOS/Fedora, but using cloud
>>> instances of CentOS/Fedora (interacted with via SSH/Ansible from the GHA
>>> Ubuntu client VM) might be preferable to using Fedora CI for certain tests.
>>>
>>> 1. "We should test GHA via the ansible-pulp related repos now, and then
>>> come up with a thorough & quick schedule to migrate from Travis to GHA
>>> entirely, resources permitting."
>>> I totally agree with this.
>>>
>>> 2. "We must use Fedora/Centos CI for SELinux policy testing at all,
>>> because Travis & GHA use Ubuntu, whose kernel doesn't support SELinux."
>>> I do not think this is correct. I've researched this, but haven't test
>>> it.
>>> SELinux upstream seems to run their CI on Ubuntu:
>>> https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux/blob/master/.travis.yml
>>>
>>> https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite/blob/master/.travis.yml#L53
>>> How did they make this work?
>>> My 1 theory is that Ubuntu's kernel has support for both SELinux and
>>> AppArmor, but Travis slims down the image so that AppArmor does not get
>>> enabled like on a default Ubuntu install. So SELinux can be enabled at
>>> runtime.
>>> My 2nd theory is that enough of a shim (the 2nd link on fake-selinuxfs
>>> in particular) is sufficient to avoid reboot.
>>> However, #4 still negates this option.
>>>
>>> 3. "We must use Fedora/CentOS CI because pulp-certguard's dependencies
>>> are an issue on Ubuntu"
>>> The plugin-template uses our Fedora containers w/ pulp-operator & k3s.
>>> Isn't this sufficient?
>>>
>>> 4.  "We must use Fedora/Centos CI for SELinux policy testing with
>>> pulp-rpm / pulp-certguard. Containers will provide the pulp-rpm /
>>> pulp-container deps on ubuntu, but break SELinux testing because SELinux
>>> wraps around the entire container."
>>> This is a bigger concern. My research confirms this, even lxc does not
>>> support SELinux policies *within* the container. Our SELinux policies
>>> currently support the plugins Katello is integrating: pulp-container,
>>> pulp-file, pulp-rpm, and pulp-certguard. We could still do CI testing of
>>> the 1st 2 on Ubuntu though.
>>>
>>> 5. "Our CI must run be either capable of running entirely on
>>> CentOS/Fedora CI, or have only certain tests run on them."
>>> I am more in favor of the latter, but there is another possible solution
>>> for SELinux testing. We could have an Amazon EC2 account, openstack
>>> account, etc that GHA or Travis calls out to. Ansilbe molecule has drivers
>>> for many cloud compute types:
>>> https://molecule.readthedocs.io/en/2.22/configuration.html#driver
>>> It would create a Fedora / CentOS instance specifically for testing via
>>> cloud APIs, and then run our ansible installer (SSH) against it from the
>>> GHA / Travis instance, then delete it at the end. It would mean that the
>>> Pulp Project would still have no persistent infrastructure.
>>>
>>> 6. On using Fedora with their Zuul CI instance:
>>> This looks promising, but having read their PDF, I am concerned that
>>> Fedora's instance would be specifically configured for their use case in
>>> ways that we can reconfigure. Hopefully we can. Some of their use case is
>>> integration with pagure rather than GitHub, Koji artifact storage
>>> integration, etc:
>>>
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/1/1e/CI_CD_for_Fedora_packaging_with_Zuul_-_final_-_with_notes.pdf
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:29 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is this the Software Factory instance of Zuul[0]? I can reach out to
>>>> them and see if it would make sense as an option for Pulp.
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/local/status
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 9:46 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Brian and Daniel. I agree on the points you both raised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian, to you specific questions/points:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## We need details on each piece of the Travis workflow, where it
>>>>>> will be ported to, and a rough estimate of how long each piece would take.
>>>>>> I think these things would make a great EPIC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a Github Actions epic. I plan to update it this week based on
>>>>>> our conversation and will add more specific details, estimates, etc. I'll
>>>>>> respond when it's ready for review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6065
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Who will work on it? It needs I think 2 fully dedicated people who
>>>>>> already completely understand the Travis stuff in detail. It's too hard for
>>>>>> one person and would take too long...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I definitely agree we need at least 2 people to work on this. We need
>>>>>> as many people as possible to understand Github Actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know who has time for this right now. I imagine it'll
>>>>>> probably have to wait until next sprint (Sprint 67). Or at least I
>>>>>> personally won't have time until next week at the earliest. That'll give us
>>>>>> time to plan though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the meantime, I'd consider letting the installer team merge
>>>>>> Fabricio's ansible-pulp PR[0]. This will also alleviate much of the
>>>>>> immediate need and let us begin collecting real world data/experience as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone reached out to the Fedora CI team about using their Zuul
>>>>> instance? Perhaps they've got an easy automated process for using that on
>>>>> projects. Zuul can spin up either Fedora or CentOS environments, which
>>>>> should satisfy the need for being able to test esoteric things like FIPS
>>>>> mode while also being able to get fresh environments and dependencies
>>>>> through Fedora environments.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be better to consider using Fedora CI over CentOS CI due to the
>>>>> better system overall, too...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at 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/>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200217/778b8b30/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 62204 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200217/778b8b30/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 56688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200217/778b8b30/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list