[Pulp-dev] Moving to Github Actions

Wed Mar 4 21:03:34 UTC 2020

Looking at Travis insights[0], it seems our average build queue times
before February 17 were 10-20+ min and now it looks like they are down to
4-5 min.

As a next step, I'd like to propose that for the next sprint we test out a
plugin against Github Actions. I was thinking we could merge the following
pulp_npm PR and do a few alpha releases to ensure the CD code works.

https://github.com/pulp/pulp_npm/pull/2

Thoughts?

[0] https://travis-ci.com/pulp?tab=insights

David

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 3:24 PM Fabricio Aguiar <fabricio.aguiar at redhat.com>
wrote:

> 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/20200304/25568d69/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/20200304/25568d69/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/20200304/25568d69/attachment-0001.png>