[Pulp-dev] Moving to Github Actions

Brian Bouterse bmbouter at redhat.com
Thu Mar 5 20:47:50 UTC 2020


+1

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 10:16 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200305/3cedcd6e/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/20200305/3cedcd6e/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/20200305/3cedcd6e/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list