This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Merge the Complement testing Docker images into a single, multi-purpose image. #12881
Merge the Complement testing Docker images into a single, multi-purpose image. #12881
Changes from 1 commit
e4137c1
865fa26
edc7fcd
15215bd
97699e3
9cd96d2
3a588a0
7bc03a6
bf37bf3
facccd0
7e9884a
423e212
470fabe
b0241e7
3537762
8ae3da7
33aeb67
9f8d317
9531da6
2beae8f
bc5d529
166b046
4a739ca
1af38ef
6daac8a
6c01955
2fd415b
b548132
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
the ability to run Complement against various versions of Synapse by changing the
SYNAPSE_VERSION
build param is something I've used from time to time to bisect where a problem landed, and it would be quite nice to retain that ability, presumably by parameterisingdocker/Dockerfile-workers
.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.
Good point, thanks — I should be able to support that easily.
Out of interest: Does using
git bisect
/checking out the relevant version of the source tree and usingcomplement.sh
not do what you want?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 it does, at the expense of building the entire Synapse image from scratch for each version ;)
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.
Ah, you're running it with the pre-builts? Yeah, that sounds like it'd be good to support
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.
I will note just in case you think it would be useful: we could revive #11852 to publish the synapse-worker images to GHCR if that would make this kind of investigation easier.
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.
do we not still need a signing key? or is that generated somewhere else?
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 isn't something I've touched (although the overall diff will make that less than obvious) — presumably it generated a signing key before. That said, this one eluded me for a bit!
It's in
start.py
(called byconfigure_workers_and_start.py
):synapse/docker/start.py
Lines 115 to 126 in 7f92ac4
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.
I think it is something you've changed... or at least, I don't understand why you're saying it's not.
Anyway, if
start.py
sorts it out, I guess that's fine.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.
I didn't write that file — it was already here:
e4137c1
(#12881); the diff is just confusing because I deleted the monolith-only image which is what the red part of this diff (that your comment is on) corresponds toThis file was deleted.
This file was deleted.
This file was deleted.
This file was deleted.