I'm not sure what you mean by fix it. If it isn't part of atomic host,
shouldn't it not be tested by the atomic host pipeline?
Cockpit *is* picked up by the All Package Pipeline. You can see one commit
from cockpit here
Unfortunately, that build is many builds ago so the artifacts have been
discarded so you cannot see the package test logs anymore. But, wouldn't
this be the solution, not having the atomic pipeline test it?
The integration with pagure for the All Packages Pipeline is still WIP I
believe
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Stef Walter <stefw(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 03.04.2018 15:57, Johnny Bieren wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> To clear up some of the questions on this thread:
>
> - Why no cockpit testing?
> "cockpit" as a package name is not
> in
https://pagure.io/fedora-atomic/blob/f27/f/fedora-
atomic-host-base.json
> for example, so if the distgit repo name is "cockpit" the commit by
> design would not have been picked up by the Atomic Pipeline.
How do we fix that?
I guess this gap is because "Discovery" section of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTests
Does not address how to find the dist-git repo for a given subpackage?
Stef
>
> - Atomic Pipeline doesn't test f28?
> The Atomic pipeline is currently set up for f26 and f27. I have been
> working on getting it working for f28, but I am hitting a bug and
> haven't resolved it yet, so it is not ready yet.
>
> - What is the All Packages Pipeline
> (
https://jenkins-continuous-infra.apps.ci.centos.org/view/
Fedora%20All%20Packages%20Pipeline/)
> ?
> As alluded to, this is different than the Atomic pipelines. The Atomic
> pipeline does the following: trigger on distgit commit to a repo of
> interest (see question 1 for package lists), build rpm, compose ostree,
> compose qcow2 atomic image with ostree, boot sanity tests, package
> tests, atomic host integration tests, openshift e2e tests, report all
> results from all stages on fedmsg under org.centos.prod.ci.pipeline.*
> topics. The All Packages Pipelines do the following: trigger on distgit
> commit to any package to branch [fXX | master] AND the repo contains
> standard-test-roles defined tests in that branch, build the rpm in koji,
> construct cloud qcow2 image while injecting the rpm at build time, run
> package tests, report all results from all stages on fedmsg under
> org.centos.prod.allpackages.pipeline.* topics.
>
> - Is the All Packages Pipeline production ready?
> I think it is. If you look
> here
https://jenkins-continuous-infra.apps.ci.centos.org/view/all/job/
upstream-fedora-f28-pipeline/
> it is passing when it should. There even seem to be some legitimate
> package test failures found. If you go back in the build history, you
> will likely find some bugs that have since been fixed, but most of the
> latest builds are legit. We still need the linkage setup between these
> fedmsgs and pagure, though, to the best of my knowledge.
>
> If I can clear anything else up, feel free to ask.
> Best,
> Johnny Bieren
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Dominik Perpeet <dperpeet(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:dperpeet@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 03/26/2018 05:34 PM, Ari LiVigni wrote:
>>
>>
>> -== @ri ==-
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
>> <pingou(a)pingoured.fr <mailto:pingou@pingoured.fr>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> For one, I'd need a green light that the allpackages pipeline
>> is running as
>> expected and ready for production use. Then I'll see to adjust
>> the tools for
>> this new pipeline.
>> This does mean we will announce it broadly and that we can
>> expect its load to
>> increase as more people opt-in.
>>
>
> I agree. Let's make sure it's stable and production ready, then
> announce it and help people when the inevitable issues and questions
> arise. :)
>
>>
>> Do we want to discontinue the Atomic CI one? I thought the
>> idea was to have both
>> running (see what I said above about the two pipelines being
>> complementary).
>>
>>
>> Let's have that discussion when Johnny is back from PTO. I am
>> fine having both if it makes sense and there is no duplication,
>> which I don't think there is since in the atomic one
>>
>>
>>
> I think both pipelines have merit, since they test different
> deliverables. I would prefer to keep the Atomic one around, but also
> have the "regular" one once that is stable.
>
> -Dominik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CI mailing list -- ci(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> <mailto:ci@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> To unsubscribe send an email to ci-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> <mailto:ci-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CI mailing list -- ci(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ci-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>