-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
chore: add UDS Core smoke test #474
Changes from 3 commits
2d6e492
9846e3f
2e1ba3c
b286742
cb1a63a
643d97e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ | ||
kind: UDSBundle | ||
metadata: | ||
name: uds-core | ||
description: Bundle with Zarf init and UDS Core | ||
architecture: amd64 | ||
version: 0.0.1 | ||
|
||
packages: | ||
- name: uds-k3d | ||
repository: ghcr.io/defenseunicorns/packages/uds-k3d | ||
# renovate: datasource=github-tags depName=defenseunicorns/uds-k3d versioning=semver | ||
ref: 0.4.0 | ||
overrides: | ||
uds-dev-stack: | ||
minio: | ||
variables: | ||
- name: buckets | ||
description: "Set Minio Buckets" | ||
path: buckets | ||
- name: svcaccts | ||
description: "Minio Service Accounts" | ||
path: svcaccts | ||
- name: users | ||
description: "Minio Users" | ||
path: users | ||
- name: policies | ||
description: "Minio policies" | ||
path: policies | ||
|
||
- name: init | ||
repository: oci://ghcr.io/defenseunicorns/packages/init | ||
# renovate: datasource=github-tags depName=defenseunicorns/zarf versioning=semver | ||
ref: v0.32.1 | ||
|
||
- name: core | ||
repository: oci://ghcr.io/defenseunicorns/packages/uds/core | ||
# renovate: datasource=github-tags depName=defenseunicorns/uds-core versioning=semver | ||
ref: 0.13.1-registry1 | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I do like the idea of testing against uds-core in general but this would create a weird circle dependency I think? If uds-cli has a breaking change what would the path forward be to cut a release? It seems like you'd have to update uds-core to match the syntax/whatever for the un-released version of uds-cli? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That's a really good point that I hadn't thought of. On the one hand, I'd really like to know if we have an unidentified breaking change, but I wouldn't want it to block releases. @justin-o12 what do you think of making this a nightly job instead? (see example here) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, I think making it a nightly job could work. Possibly noob question: is it even possible that uds-cli would have a breaking change that would affect the published uds Zarf package? I'm guessing by depending on a Zarf version that would have a breaking change for the published uds zarf package? Either way, by having this test outside of the release workflow we won't block releases. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah I guess technically would be a breaking change in zarf probably that would cause the above scenario - didn't think about that... since we're just consuming the zarf package here and the bundle is crafted in this test file. That's probably a pretty unlikely case then? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We've switched to deploying the k3d dev bundle, because we do not publish the k3d dev Zarf package to OCI. So, we're back to your original point that we could have a breaking change. So, we've moved this workflow to a nightly so it doesn't block releases. |
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.
wait-for
does not need a condition likeready
for gateways. Below is a command withoutready
on a gateway that exists.Next is the command with
ready
on that same gateway.Next is the command on a gateway that doesn't exist without
ready
: