-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 64
Create a Github action for MCAD CI check #497
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
Create a Github action for MCAD CI check #497
Conversation
I have been testing this in my fork branch and will update the PR once testing is done |
5419465
to
fe43ea0
Compare
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.
These changes look good to me so far, but I think you should consider the following enhancements:
- Pre-install the following things:
- kind (latest version available)
- kubectl
- kuttl (kubectl plugin)
- Configure the docker daemon to only have
- 2 CPU
- 8 GB of RAM.
The last bit is important for getting the end to end to run correctly, as they assume a certain amount of CPU's available to MCAD's kind cluster.
AFAIK the current GitHub runner has 2 CPU and 7GB of memory. Not sure if the memory difference may cause some issues. |
Tested this workflow in my fork repository , tests are looks good https://github.com/Srihari1192/multi-cluster-app-dispatcher/actions/workflows/mcad-CI.yml |
@z103cb Thanks for review |
@Srihari1192 Hopefully this line is not causing a problem for your test. |
I don't think they would most of the e2e tests depend mostly on available CPU. @Srihari1192 would be possible to view the output of your run ? |
Yes the mentioned line is not causing a problem in test and also Unit test and E2E tests results looks good https://github.com/Srihari1192/multi-cluster-app-dispatcher/actions/runs/5619138250/job/15225780359 |
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.
We'll need a follow on PR/issue to remove travis support (i.e .travis.yaml) all together, but this is looking good.
fe43ea0
to
696ef07
Compare
cbc91cc
to
3c24fc6
Compare
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.
@Srihari1192 we need to make sure that these variables are set when calling make images.
"---"
"MAKE GLOBAL VARIABLES:"
" "BIN_DIR="_output/bin"
" "GIT_BRANCH=""
" "RELEASE_VER=""
" "TAG=""
" "GO_BUILD_ARGS=""
"---"
# Check for
Yes Build is failing to fetch branch and tag.. looks like some permission required, looking into it |
9f8c81e
to
986c728
Compare
1521b34
to
f46ab48
Compare
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.
f46ab48
to
4cb5ec8
Compare
4cb5ec8
to
f67ee62
Compare
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.
Looks good to me
This is looking good to me. Letting @asm582 chime in. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sutaakar, z103cb 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 |
Fixes #480