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

Put workspace-in-sidecar example into no-ci #4380

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 2, 2021
Merged

Put workspace-in-sidecar example into no-ci #4380

merged 1 commit into from Dec 2, 2021

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

Changes

The workspace-in-sidecar example has been a relatively
consistent flake in our CI suite. The issue #4169
was created in August describing this problem and
there have been relatively regular reports related to the
example since then. To a first approximation I've found 31
individual instances of the test's failure since May across
24 separate Pull Requests.

Attempts to reduce the flakiness of this example have not
been successful yet. So in order to reduce the amount of noise
in our CI (and hopefully increase overall trust in the suite)
this commit moves the example into the no-ci folder, preventing
its execution, while we continue to try and figure out why it
is so flakey.

Just to reiterate here: there's no intention to ignore
the workspace-in-sidecar example's flakiness. I'm still looking into it. But
the overall noise it adds to our CI results, I would argue, messes with the confidence
we place in the suite.

Submitter Checklist

As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:

Release Notes

NONE

The workspace-in-sidecar example has been a relatively
consistent flake in our CI suite. The issue #4169
was created in August describing this problem and
there have been relatively regular reports related to the
example since then. To a first approximation I've found 31
individual instances of the test's failure since May across
24 separate Pull Requests.

Attempts to reduce the flakiness of this example have not
been successful yet. So in order to reduce the amount of noise
in our CI (and hopefully increase overall trust in the suite)
this commit moves the example into the no-ci folder, preventing
its execution, while we continue to try and figure out why it
is so flakey.
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesnt merit a release note. label Nov 17, 2021
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 17, 2021
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/kind flake

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the kind/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test label Nov 17, 2021
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/remove-kind flake

@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed the kind/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test label Nov 17, 2021
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/kind flake

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the kind/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test label Nov 17, 2021
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/remove-kind flake

@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed the kind/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test label Nov 17, 2021
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/kind flake

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the kind/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test label Nov 17, 2021
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/test check-pr-has-kind-label

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/close

@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@sbwsg: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

/close

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 17, 2021

/reopen

@tekton-robot tekton-robot reopened this Nov 17, 2021
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@sbwsg: Reopened this PR.

In response to this:

/reopen

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 18, 2021

Here's a permanent link to the failed test run output.

Failed Test: test/v1alpha1 TestSidecarTaskSupport/A_sidecar_that_runs_forever_is_terminated_when_Steps_complete

Ran for 10m12s according to the test runner. The TaskRun under test has its timeout field set to 1m, so that's quite a disparity.

The test runner reported the following:

    sidecar_test.go:100: Creating Task "sidecar-test-task-0"
    sidecar_test.go:105: Creating TaskRun "sidecar-test-task-run-0"
    sidecar_test.go:129: Error waiting for Pod "sidecar-test-task-run-0-pod" to terminate both the primary and sidecar containers: timed out waiting for the condition
    sidecar_test.go:150: Sidecar container has a nil Terminated status but non-nil is expected.
    sidecar_test.go:158: Either the primary or sidecar containers did not terminate

Both the sidecar and steps are reported as successful in the captured TaskRun, and both have a non-nil terminated field:

        status:
          completionTime: "2021-11-17T21:34:31Z"
          conditions:
          - lastTransitionTime: "2021-11-17T21:34:31Z"
            message: All Steps have completed executing
            reason: Succeeded
            status: "True"
            type: Succeeded
          podName: sidecar-test-task-run-0-pod
          sidecars:
          - container: sidecar-sidecar-container
            imageID: docker-pullable://gcr.io/tekton-prow-6/tpipeline-e2e-img/nop-8eac7c133edad5df719dc37b36b62482@sha256:acb6b4cd4957beee021d31a3ac1d533ecd4f3f35085a8881068a57e63953a14d
            name: sidecar-container
            terminated:
              containerID: docker://5e9c5e88e389caac2efad56790b50fb1bcfe3c575ec96fe68b10b33005e4fde7
              exitCode: 0
              finishedAt: null
              message: Sidecar container successfully stopped by nop image
              reason: Completed
              startedAt: null
          startTime: "2021-11-17T21:34:22Z"
          steps:
          - container: step-primary
            imageID: docker-pullable://busybox@sha256:e7157b6d7ebbe2cce5eaa8cfe8aa4fa82d173999b9f90a9ec42e57323546c353
            name: primary
            terminated:
              containerID: docker://55fb66dd40f5d695ea7378f1ed51d5eb895e37fe9cc117e3868f18ed6951ef61
              exitCode: 0
              finishedAt: "2021-11-17T21:34:30Z"
              reason: Completed
              startedAt: "2021-11-17T21:34:30Z"

The creation timestamp on the TaskRun is 2021-11-17T21:34:20Z so it looks like it took about 10 seconds from creation to termination, at least as far as the cluster-under-test was concerned.

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2021
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 18, 2021

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-alpha-integration-tests

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 18, 2021

/test check-pr-has-kind-label

Copy link
Member

@afrittoli afrittoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/approve

@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: afrittoli

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

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 2, 2021
Copy link
Member

@vdemeester vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 2, 2021
@tekton-robot tekton-robot merged commit 620443c into tektoncd:main Dec 2, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesnt merit a release note. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants