Skip to content
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

don't require a buildconfig label on build objects #9527

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 29, 2016

Conversation

bparees
Copy link
Contributor

@bparees bparees commented Jun 23, 2016

No description provided.

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 23, 2016

@mfojtik ptal. this check was preventing people from directly creating build objects with no associated buildconfig.

@jwforres fyi

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 24, 2016

[test]

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ type SerialPolicy struct {
func (s *SerialPolicy) IsRunnable(build *buildapi.Build) (bool, error) {
bcName := buildutil.ConfigNameForBuild(build)
if len(bcName) == 0 {
return false, NewNoBuildConfigLabelError(build)
return true, nil
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hrm, does this mean that creating a build directly will cause the build to schedule immediately?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

*build without build config

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(I think it might be OK, as there is no BC associated to build which means those builds should have parallel policy)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, that was the intent.. if you're creating one off builds, you don't get a scheduling policy since we have no idea what other builds it should be scheduled against.

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 24, 2016

test flake #9548

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 24, 2016

@mfojtik anything else?

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 24, 2016

[test]

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 25, 2016

[test]

Ben Parees | OpenShift
On Jun 24, 2016 9:20 PM, "OpenShift Bot" notifications@github.com wrote:

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/test FAILURE (
https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/5409/)


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#9527 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEvl3hmOIuuec7DZb6HcLqpLG9O-Ouohks5qPIJkgaJpZM4I9QoJ
.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin test up to 09f86e4

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/test SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/5412/)

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 27, 2016

@mfojtik bump for monday morning.

@mfojtik
Copy link
Contributor

mfojtik commented Jun 27, 2016

LGTM [merge]

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 27, 2016

[merge]

1 similar comment
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 27, 2016

[merge]

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 27, 2016

[merge]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, OpenShift Bot notifications@github.com
wrote:

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge ABORTED (
https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/5475/)


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#9527 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEvl3m_LKfdK6e5AZcmdxGt_6z2gYhDvks5qQFrCgaJpZM4I9QoJ
.

Ben Parees | OpenShift

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 28, 2016

[merge]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:55 PM, OpenShift Bot notifications@github.com
wrote:

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge ABORTED (
https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/5481/)


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#9527 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEvl3uaJNru_zMl431ZnDGAnjyazPgmKks5qQI0lgaJpZM4I9QoJ
.

Ben Parees | OpenShift

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 28, 2016

[merge]

Ben Parees | OpenShift
On Jun 28, 2016 02:05, "OpenShift Bot" notifications@github.com wrote:

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge ABORTED (
https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/5483/)


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#9527 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEvl3kAr2bSe0-c3TGqvIQn8KHXMg0FPks5qQLmsgaJpZM4I9QoJ
.

@mfojtik
Copy link
Contributor

mfojtik commented Jun 28, 2016

@bparees merge spree :-) [merge]

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 28, 2016

@mfojtik i'm going for a record.

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 28, 2016

[merge]

1 similar comment
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Jun 28, 2016

[merge]

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin merge up to 09f86e4

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Jun 28, 2016

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/5412/) (Image: devenv-rhel7_4479)

@openshift-bot openshift-bot merged commit e64ad7c into openshift:master Jun 29, 2016
@bparees bparees deleted the bc_label_policy branch June 30, 2016 21:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants