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

Attempt to fix multiarch workflow #342

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 24, 2023

Conversation

jotak
Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak commented May 23, 2023

Shortlived images are now built from scratch, not from a base. (Same can be done later for bundle & catalog)

It simplifies the workflows especially with multiarch. We don't need anymore the "ci*" make targets.

Restore the SHA-builds on merged commits

Also make multiarch configurable, and only for merged commits, not per PR

Shortlived images are now built from scratch, not from a base.
(Same can be done later for bundle & catalog)

It simplifies the workflows especially with multiarch

Also make multiarch configurable, and only for merged commits, not per
PR
@jotak jotak requested a review from msherif1234 May 23, 2023 16:19
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 23, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #342 (8d080ba) into main (7bf6bbc) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 8d080ba differs from pull request most recent head e998895. Consider uploading reports for the commit e998895 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #342   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   51.42%   51.42%           
=======================================
  Files          43       43           
  Lines        5186     5186           
=======================================
  Hits         2667     2667           
  Misses       2323     2323           
  Partials      196      196           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 51.42% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented May 23, 2023

per-PR workflow tested here: https://github.com/netobserv/network-observability-operator/actions/runs/5059748527/jobs/9081725300?pr=343
This one seems good.
We'll need also to check post-merge workflow

@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented May 23, 2023

If we agree on that we should make similar changes in the other repos

@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented May 23, 2023

hold on ... there's something fishy ; the generated bundle seems wrong, its containerImage is odd

...to avoid unexpected collisions
@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented May 23, 2023

next try: #344

@msherif1234
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented May 23, 2023

Hey @msherif1234 - added two more commits:

  • one to allow testing on a specific branch, workflow-test, that will also trigger the post-merge workflow
  • a final one to document all of that

So I think I'm done with this PR, although (as said on slack) I've found new issues related to multi-arch - but that's not related to this PR, I think it can still be merged

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau mentioned this pull request May 24, 2023
@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented May 24, 2023

thanks @jpinsonneau @msherif1234 !
/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 24, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jotak

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 49c4ade into netobserv:main May 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants