-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CAPI: Add operator branch to main jobs #21182
CAPI: Add operator branch to main jobs #21182
Conversation
Hi @alexander-demichev. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
/ok-to-test Intention here is to have this as a temporary branch but have all of the existing presubmits running against it to ensure we don't break anything |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/hold
for kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api#4126 to merge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
/lgtm
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alexander-demichev, vincepri The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@fabriziopandini I don't think we need to hold on that, given that the jobs are going to be the same, but the operator specific ones are additional |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@fabriziopandini I don't think we need to hold on that, given that the jobs are going to be the same, but the operator specific ones are additional
I think we should sort out the makefile in the operator branch first, because /scripts rely on that (see kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api#4126 (comment))
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ presubmits: | |||
branches: | |||
# The script this job runs is not in all branches. | |||
- ^master$ | |||
- ^operator-0.4$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This assumes kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api#4126 (comment) to be addressed first; If we are going to have different makefiles, the /scripts
should be updated accordingly
@@ -113,6 +118,7 @@ presubmits: | |||
branches: | |||
# The script this job runs is not in all branches. | |||
- ^master$ | |||
- ^operator-0.4$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it makes sense to run the e2e tests for this branch given that it everything else should not be affected by the operator work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought we might add the operator to e2e or it makes more sense to have a separate job for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's for sure, but the question is when
As for now, e2e jobs rely on clusterctl, and according to our latest discussion, the work for getting clusterctl to use the operator will start only when the operator is completed. Does It makes sense to run e2e test on this branch before that moment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
right, let me remove that for now
@@ -143,6 +149,7 @@ presubmits: | |||
branches: | |||
# The script this job runs is not in all branches. | |||
- ^master$ | |||
- ^operator-0.4$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above.
@@ -169,6 +176,7 @@ presubmits: | |||
branches: | |||
# The script this job runs is not in all branches. | |||
- ^master$ | |||
- ^operator-0.4$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above.
0e2189d
to
9fc679a
Compare
I added a |
@@ -205,3 +210,25 @@ presubmits: | |||
annotations: | |||
testgrid-dashboards: sig-cluster-lifecycle-cluster-api | |||
testgrid-tab-name: capi-pr-e2e-k8s-latest-main | |||
- name: pull-cluster-api-operator-verify |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not using the same approach we are using for CAPD (calling make targets from a script)
This avoid to add complexity to test grid and it will make things to nicely fit when we are going to merge back on main
247e5a7
to
c3d6959
Compare
/lgtm |
/hold cancel |
@alexander-demichev: Updated the
In 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. |
There was created a separate branch for developing new operator. This branch will later be merged in main but now it needs the same CI jobs.
Fixes: kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api#4269