Allow large runners to be configured by an input #135
Conversation
Some of the reusable workflow jobs in here refer to large runners which exist within the upbound GitHub organisation. These can't be invoked by forks: > Called workflows cannot be queued onto self-hosted runners across organisations/enterprises. Failed to queue this job. Labels: 'e2-standard-8 , linux'. If we make this into an input then callers can customise it themselves and still continue to use the reusable workflows to publish their providers.
|
|
|
Thanks @iainlane for the contribution. We have moved the Do you still have bandwidth to work on this PR? I will leave a review for you. If not possible, I can rebase this PR and merge it, and implement the suggested changes in a separate PR on top yours. Thank you very much, and extremely sorry for the late reply. |
| @@ -3,6 +3,10 @@ name: Run Uptest | |||
| on: | |||
| workflow_call: | |||
| inputs: | |||
| large-runner: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about naming this parameter as:
| large-runner: | |
| workflow-runner: |
The motivation is the supplied runner selector could be smaller or larger compared to a reference (standard) runner. So, it's better if we don't imply a size in the parameter name in my opinion (although the current use case is to have larger runners).
| @@ -3,6 +3,10 @@ name: Provider CI | |||
| on: | |||
| workflow_call: | |||
| inputs: | |||
| large-runner: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please see the comment above regarding the parameter naming.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like we will currently need a new parameter for the lint job. It's using a different runner label than the others in the current main HEAD. My suggestion would be something like lint-workflow-runner. We can also consider differentiating the other job parameters but I would prefer we do so when we need it.
| @@ -3,6 +3,10 @@ name: Provider Publish Service Artifacts | |||
| on: | |||
| workflow_call: | |||
| inputs: | |||
| large-runner: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please see the comment above regarding the parameter naming.
|
Hi @iainlane, So, my understanding is that even when we parameterize the runner labels, specifying non-standard label(s) will not work, e.g., when we will be reusing this workflow and pass a parameter like: does not work. Is this correct? |
Some of the reusable workflow jobs in here refer to large runners which exist within the upbound GitHub organisation. These can't be invoked by forks:
If we make this into an input then callers can customise it themselves and still continue to use the reusable workflows to publish their providers.
I have:
make reviewable testto ensure this PR is ready for review.How has this code been tested
I've run it here. What works is using the built-in runners like
ubuntu-latest. Specifying our own runner labels doesn't work still. But at least this lets us run the reusable workflows. This inspired me to start a discussion thread on the github community.