Conversation
Owner
Author
|
/packit retest-failed |
comps
force-pushed
the
ci_test
branch
2 times, most recently
from
125ec6d to
0d23046
Compare
This was likely a leftover from Beakerlib-era Fedora "downstream" testing - when we stopped doing it, we moved the only remaining valid test here. However since we run cTests via Github Actions in upstream, this extra test is likely unnecessary and complicates our Packit testing setup. Signed-off-by: Jiri Jaburek <comps@nomail.dom>
Keeping plans/tests separate is not necessary, and the use case is isolated enough that it makes sense to keep all pieces of it together. Signed-off-by: Jiri Jaburek <comps@nomail.dom>
The new layout has much fewer jobs: - centos-stream-8-x86_64:contest-oscap - centos-stream-8-x86_64:contest-ansible - centos-stream-9-x86_64:contest-oscap - centos-stream-9-x86_64:contest-ansible - centos-stream-10-x86_64:contest-oscap - centos-stream-10-x86_64:contest-ansible while keeping at least some separation for re-running. Within each job, all tests still execute in parallel, as parallel tmt plans, so there shouldn't be any extra performance hit or added delay. The coalescing will however vastly reduce the amount of Testing Farm "requests", hopefully reducing load on TF a lot, in addition to reducing load on Github runners. --- I opted for defining the plans on the Contest side instead of in tests/tmt/ because support for plan importing (as we did before) is limited and ie. doesn't allow filtering by tags. Having the plans in Contest allows us to automatically filter out profiles which are subsets of others, tests that always fail by design, etc., etc. We also don't need to worry about which tests/profiles are on which CentOS Stream, since Contest has "adjust" rules for that already, and an empty plan is automatically SKIPPED by Testing Farm. Signed-off-by: Jiri Jaburek <comps@nomail.dom>
Owner
Author
|
/packit retest-failed |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description:
Rationale:
Rationale here. Replace this text. Don't use the italics format!
Fixes # Issue number here (e.g. Updating sysctl XCCDF naming ComplianceAsCode/content#26) or remove this line if no issue exists.
Review Hints:
Review hints here. Replace this text. Don't use the italics format!
Use this optional section to give any relevant information which could help the reviewer to more quickly and assertively understand and test the changes.
Good examples are useful commands, if it is better to review all commits together or in a suggested sequence, any relevant discussion in other PRs or issues, etc.