-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 163
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
test: run linux package tests nightly against latest contrib main #666
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
test: run linux package tests nightly against latest contrib main #666
Conversation
ccfa4e8
to
a24cc4e
Compare
86091e2
to
cce781a
Compare
14ab206
to
7e08c5f
Compare
d492610
to
9e0c3e6
Compare
c399793
to
860fc05
Compare
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
9bdc8fc
to
9f83a4d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ BUILDER='' | |||
# default values | |||
skipcompilation=false | |||
|
|||
while getopts d:s:b:g: flag | |||
while getopts d:s:b: flag |
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.
removed unused flag which should have been removed in #727
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
@mx-psi i fixed all your remarks, pls re-review when you find some time :) |
- name: Create artifacts directory to store build artifacts | ||
run: mkdir -p distributions/otelcol-contrib/artifacts |
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.
Should this be conditional on latest being true as well?
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.
Could we more cleanly separate the steps that are part of the nightly tests vs the ones that are not?
For example, we can have a "(Nightly)" prefix on the name of all of them
On the code itself, I was wondering if we can have an uses
directive and that way we only have to check once that the inputs look correct
@@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ on: | |||
goarch: | |||
required: true | |||
type: string | |||
latest: |
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.
Should this be called nightly
? Also, could you add a description
to this field so it is clear what it does?
--json databaseId \ | ||
--jq '.[0].databaseId' \ | ||
) | ||
echo "Found run ID: $run_id" |
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.
What happens if a run id is not found?
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.
How will we be able to tell if there is an error? I think we should create a release:blocker
issue if there is a failed test. We can do this in a follow up PR if you want to.
if dist == K8sDistro { | ||
return nil | ||
} |
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 don't understand this, this wasn't here before, right?
"gopkg.in/yaml.v3" | ||
|
||
"github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-releases/cmd/goreleaser/internal" | ||
) | ||
|
||
var distFlag = flag.String("d", "", "Collector distributions to build") | ||
var contribBuildOrRestFlag = flag.Bool("b", false, "Collector Contrib distribution only - switch between build and package config file - set to true to generate build step, false to generate package step") |
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 know the precedent is not great but... can we use a more descriptive name for this flag? --generate-build-step
?
This PR enables nightly testing of the otelcol-contrib linux packages based on the latest main branch version of otelcol-contrib built in https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib.
This change was made possible by splitting the otelcol-contrib gorelease config into 2 separate files, one for building and one for packaging/archives/docker images/etc.
(The split goreleaser build is a goreleaser pro feature)
Using the split building approach was the only viable option to achieve this. I did lots of research on this, it was talked about in the Collector SIG meeting and I also asked the GoReleaser folks for their help.
Consequences of this change:
Fixes #659