.github/workflows: Add the unit and verify workflows #2096
Conversation
timflannagan
force-pushed
the
add-unit-github-action
branch
3 times, most recently
from
b4558e6 to
a6bb8a8
Compare
|
/retest |
timflannagan
force-pushed
the
add-unit-github-action
branch
10 times, most recently
from
c007061 to
471db81
Compare
Introduce two additional GH action workflows that match the existing prow-based unit/verify jobs, with the intention of migrating off prow entirely for master/4.8+ branch(es). Signed-off-by: timflannagan <[email protected]>
timflannagan
force-pushed
the
add-unit-github-action
branch
from
471db81 to
275cbd8
Compare
| # The setup-go action does not set this value for us: https://github.com/actions/setup-go/issues/14. | ||
| - name: Run the verify target | ||
| run: | | ||
| export GOPATH=$(go env GOPATH) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried using the recommended environment files but the following error was produced when configuring the environment in a separate job:
$GOPATH/go.mod exists but should not
# Clients, listers, and informers
$GOPATH/go.mod exists but should not
./scripts/update_codegen.sh
$GOPATH/go.mod exists but should not
make: *** [Makefile:203: codegen] Error 1
|
Corresponding PR in o/release to remove those prow-based jobs entirely: openshift/release#18324. |
/rerun-workflow unit |
|
/rerun-all |
|
/rerun-workflow e2e-tests |
| @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | |||
| name: unit | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: this ends up being called "unit/unit" and "verify/verify" on the github actions on the PR...could we have them be under "test/unit" or something instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same names as the registry github actions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's how the registry GH actions are currently named, and I didn't see any evidence we have any consistent naming of workflows/jobs here. I don't have a strong opinion either way so I'm fine with renaming both of the workflow names to be test unless that's problematic having two separate workflows that share the same name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I don't know if we have an explicit convention. Looks like our OLM github actions now are under "upstream-tests/" and "e2e-tests/" so maybe putting these under "upstream-tests/" for now makes sense.
That being said this is now solely the upstream repository so I feel like we could drop the "upstream-" in a follow-up PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@exdx There may be an existing upstream issue for this, or at least I mentioned it in removing the OCP manifests from the repository issue, but I plan on tackling some more updates to the CI pipeline once we migrate off of prow (note: but not tide), so I think it's fine to keep the current workflow/job names with the intention of trying to create a more generalized naming convention in a subsequent PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, let's revisit this topic since there isn't an existing convention. Also agreed that explicitly calling things "upstream" doesn't make sense as we migrate the downstream bits out of operator-framework.
|
/approve |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: benluddy, dinhxuanvu, timflannagan 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 |
Introduce two additional GH action workflows that match the existing
prow-based unit/verify jobs, with the intention of migrating off prow
entirely for master/4.8+ branch(es).
Description of the change:
Motivation for the change:
Reviewer Checklist
/doc