Skip to content

.github/workflows: Separate out the e2e jobs into workflows #2158

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

Conversation

timflannagan
Copy link
Member

Update the .github/workflows/test-scripts.yml GH action workflow and
move all the jobs listed there into separate workflows. This allows us
to retest a single workflow at a time as a workaround to GH not allowing
you to retest individual jobs in a workflow.

Description of the change:

Motivation for the change:

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Docs updated or added to /doc
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from ankitathomas and awgreene May 12, 2021 21:48
@timflannagan timflannagan force-pushed the separate-e2e-jobs-into-workflows branch 2 times, most recently from 41826b5 to a6b5dd3 Compare May 12, 2021 21:49
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 12, 2021
@timflannagan
Copy link
Member Author

@exdx This is probably a good time to revisit how we're naming these workflow/jobs instead of that other PR I posted last week. I think removing the upstream-* prefix from anything is a step in the right direction - any opinion on naming conventions, besides that?

@exdx
Copy link
Member

exdx commented May 24, 2021

@exdx This is probably a good time to revisit how we're naming these workflow/jobs instead of that other PR I posted last week. I think removing the upstream-* prefix from anything is a step in the right direction - any opinion on naming conventions, besides that?

This looks great @timflannagan. The other thing I'd like to change is the duplicate name as I brought up in the prior PR, things like build/build and unit/unit -- could we have those under a test/* or ci/* action instead?

@timflannagan timflannagan force-pushed the separate-e2e-jobs-into-workflows branch from fc1d386 to 367e2b6 Compare May 27, 2021 13:37
@timflannagan
Copy link
Member Author

@exdx Done -- updated all of the workflow names to have a ci prefixed name. I don't have a great replacement name for that build action yet as there should be an issue tracking the need to also run that container image vs. just checking if we're successfully able to build it.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 18, 2021
@timflannagan timflannagan force-pushed the separate-e2e-jobs-into-workflows branch from 367e2b6 to 1576623 Compare August 31, 2021 17:37
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 31, 2021
@timflannagan
Copy link
Member Author

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 31, 2021
@timflannagan
Copy link
Member Author

/rerun-all

Update the .github/workflows/test-scripts.yml GH action workflow and
move all the jobs listed there into separate workflows. This allows us
to retest a single workflow at a time as a workaround to GH not allowing
you to retest individual jobs in a workflow.

Signed-off-by: timflannagan <[email protected]>
@timflannagan timflannagan force-pushed the separate-e2e-jobs-into-workflows branch from 1acf98d to 8c941b4 Compare August 31, 2021 17:51
Copy link
Member

@njhale njhale left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for cleaning this up.

/approve

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 8, 2021
Copy link
Member

@dinhxuanvu dinhxuanvu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 8, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 8, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dinhxuanvu, njhale, 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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 966ce43 into operator-framework:master Sep 8, 2021
@timflannagan timflannagan deleted the separate-e2e-jobs-into-workflows branch January 4, 2022 16:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants