-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
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
Xpack Foo module on mage build system #9242
Xpack Foo module on mage build system #9242
Conversation
This enables the use of mage to build, test, and package x-pack/metricbeat. This adds it to the test matrix on Travis CI as well. But it does not modify the top-level metricbeat build to stop producing x-pack artifacts. This cut-over needs still needs to be done. (cherry picked from commit d6b1ba1) # Conflicts: # metricbeat/Dockerfile
(cherry picked from commit fd70623)
(cherry picked from commit 0a39283)
x-pack/metricbeat/magefile.go
Outdated
return mage.PythonNoseTest(mage.DefaultPythonTestUnitArgs()) | ||
} | ||
|
||
// PythonUnitTest executes the python system tests in the integration environment (Docker). |
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.
comment on exported function PythonIntegTest should be of the form "PythonIntegTest ..."
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.
My bad. Can you fix this @sayden?
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.
Sure! :)
x-pack/metricbeat/magefile.go
Outdated
if err != nil { | ||
return err | ||
} | ||
//defer os.Remove(modulesConfigYml) |
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.
This should have been uncommented. We want to remove the file when this function finishes.
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.
Ok!
Looks like the foo module needs formatted.
|
When running |
I checked out the branch locally and the following files are not checked in:
I think all these should be checked in too? @andrewkroh I'm a bit surprised that we did not get an error on CI because of the above files. |
The implementation of Lines 88 to 89 in d997a82
Line 75 in 4471df5
But I do think it would be nice to have it fail on this condition in CI. |
Got it. We can add such a check in a more generic way later. Thanks @sayden Can you add the missing files? |
…nd include/list.go
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.
LGTM.
@kaiyan-sheng Merged. You should rebase your PR on top of this. @sayden Do you feel comfortable to follow up with a PR for the docs collection? In general I think we should backport this as soon as we have at least one module in x-pack for 6.x. Also as soon as we have one module in, we should remove the "fake module". |
Seems this file was missing in elastic#9242
Seems this file was missing in #9242
@@ -1,21 +1,16 @@ | |||
FROM golang:1.11.2 | |||
MAINTAINER Nicolas Ruflin <ruflin@elastic.co> | |||
FROM golang:1.10.3 |
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.
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.
As far as I remember this we were using 1.10.3
because of needs in the CI (formatting if I remember well) and probably. I don't remember to directly change this, I think it was a co-authored PR with @andrewkroh who maybe can give us some more light here.
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.
It might be that things changed during the initial opening of the PR and when it get merged. Could you try a PR to get back the "old" Dockerfile again or have a look on what the actual differences and implications could be?
A merge of the commits that @andrewkroh mention here #9230 with the contents of a dummy
foo
module.@ruflin take a look here too, I prefer to do a stop & go, ask and ensure the next step :)