OCPBUGS-3633: Revert "Merge pull request #27533 from dgoodwin/merge-alert-backstops" #27547
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dgoodwin, stbenjam The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
dgoodwin
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/invalid-bug
|
@dgoodwin: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3633, which is invalid:
Comment DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/jira refresh |
|
@dgoodwin: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3633, which is invalid:
Comment DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/cherry-pick release-4.12 |
|
@stbenjam: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-4.12 in a new PR and assign it to you. DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-bug
|
@stbenjam: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3633, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/skip |
|
@stbenjam: Overrode contexts on behalf of stbenjam: ci/prow/e2e-gcp-ovn, ci/prow/e2e-gcp-ovn-builds DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
Bot seems a little confused. Says it's still waiting on these but they were successfully run. /override ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-fips |
|
@dgoodwin: Overrode contexts on behalf of dgoodwin: ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-fips, ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-serial, ci/prow/e2e-gcp-ovn-upgrade DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
@dgoodwin: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
@dgoodwin: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3633 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
@stbenjam: new pull request created: #27550 DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
5 participants
TRT-674
This reverts commit a747f94, reversing
changes made to 63e7542.
There appears to be a problem with recording flakes, none in 4.13 jobs since Nov 4th. There was some odd flaking code I moved here, but tried to maintain compatibility. I suspect some of the magic involved in reporting a flake for the currently running test doesn't work if you move the code for some reason.
Due to this we're now failing payloads because we don't get enough results, I think because we usually flake this test and now are below 6 results because those don't get recorded.
4.12 is more confusing, this code should be live there, payloads are failing the same way, but I do still see some flakes getting reported in 4.12 jobs...