[Pulp-dev] Moving to Github Actions

Thu Mar 5 03:15:05 UTC 2020

+1

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:05 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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/>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200304/b4ba2336/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/b4ba2336/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/b4ba2336/attachment-0001.png>