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

Switch (testing) to Teal53 #297

Closed
kkaempf opened this issue Aug 30, 2022 · 6 comments · Fixed by #304
Closed

Switch (testing) to Teal53 #297

kkaempf opened this issue Aug 30, 2022 · 6 comments · Fixed by #304
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@kkaempf
Copy link
Contributor

kkaempf commented Aug 30, 2022

Use the artifacts from isv:Rancher:Elemental:Teal53 (instead of isv:Rancher:Elemental:Teal52) in testing.

@kkaempf kkaempf changed the title Switch QA to Teal53 Switch (testing) to Teal53 Aug 30, 2022
@Itxaka
Copy link
Contributor

Itxaka commented Aug 31, 2022

but testing on github is done using the github artifacts, i.e.:

  • latest elemental-cli from elemental-cli-ci repo
  • latest elemental-operator from elemental-operator-ci repo
  • latest rancher-system-agent from rancher-system-agent repo

Testing on github is only setup for the latest most recent versions published as it should be, that is done in order to catch issues while developing.

Artifacts generated from OBS should be tested in a different way as those can be behind what we have in the edge of development.

Not sure if we should mix obs and github. Cant we have a different way of testing artifacts generated by OBS? Makes no sense to me to mix those.

My thinking is, we develop on github, on main branches, which may not be ready to publish and have breaking changes, and those changes are tested in there -> Once tested, approved and whatnot those changes are propagated to OBS which builds the final image that will be available to customers/end users as "supported" (github stuff is not supported, its dev only). Those artifacts then should be tested before being published.

I mean we can have a daily job that tests the stuff already published on OBS but...how does that makes sense? Its already published adn its not reported anywhere. We cannot have it as part of our dev workflow as any changes done to the code wont be reflected on that job until the source in OBS is updated...by that time it has already been merged to master...

If the stuff is built on OBS, the testing should be done as part of OBS workflows, not github.

@Itxaka
Copy link
Contributor

Itxaka commented Aug 31, 2022

What we can do is change the base testing image which is currently registry.suse.com/suse/sle-micro-rancher/5.2:latest to 5.3

@kkaempf
Copy link
Contributor Author

kkaempf commented Aug 31, 2022

Not sure if we should mix obs and github

No,I agree we shouldn't.

What we can do is change the base testing image

That's also ok !

@kkaempf
Copy link
Contributor Author

kkaempf commented Aug 31, 2022

If the stuff is built on OBS, the testing should be done as part of OBS workflows, not github.

openQA anyone ? 😉

@Itxaka Itxaka self-assigned this Aug 31, 2022
@Itxaka Itxaka moved this from 🗳️ To Do to 🏃🏼‍♂️ In Progress in Elemental Aug 31, 2022
Repository owner moved this from 🏃🏼‍♂️ In Progress to ✅ Done in Elemental Aug 31, 2022
@Itxaka
Copy link
Contributor

Itxaka commented Aug 31, 2022

Still missing rancher/elemental-toolkit#1594, reopening

@Itxaka Itxaka reopened this Aug 31, 2022
Repository owner moved this from ✅ Done to 🗳️ To Do in Elemental Aug 31, 2022
@Itxaka Itxaka moved this from 🗳️ To Do to 👀 Needs review in Elemental Aug 31, 2022
@Itxaka
Copy link
Contributor

Itxaka commented Sep 2, 2022

rancher/elemental-toolkit#1594 was merged, closing. We now use packages and elemental with base 5.3

@Itxaka Itxaka closed this as completed Sep 2, 2022
Repository owner moved this from 👀 Needs review to ✅ Done in Elemental Sep 2, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants