Skip to content

Conversation

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor

@bparees bparees commented Oct 18, 2017

No description provided.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 18, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 18, 2017
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Oct 18, 2017

/retest

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Oct 18, 2017

/unassign @deads2k
/assign @csrwng

@csrwng ptal

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Oct 18, 2017

/retest

Copy link
Contributor

@gabemontero gabemontero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A couple of questions (admittedly I did not go back and review / refresh my memory on exactly how builds transition from new to pending)

sawCompletion = true
}
if build.Status.Phase == buildapi.BuildPhaseRunning {
if build.Status.Phase == buildapi.BuildPhaseRunning || build.Status.Phase == buildapi.BuildPhasePending {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

do we need to consider builds in new state? or can we safely assume they will always be transitioned in a timely enough fashion to pending

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the point of the test is to create a bunch of builds in the new state, then ensure that one at a time they enter pending(or running), with the next one entering pending(or running) when the previous one completes.

considering new would break the test.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the point of the change here is that it might take a while for a pod to enter running, which screws up the confirmatoin this test does to say "did this pod enter running sooner after the last build finished".

So instead of needing the pod to enter running, it's sufficient to see that the build entered pending (Which means we created the pod for the build, which we won't do until the previous build completes). This will be less vulnerable to problem w/ scheduling and container creation which might prevent a pod from entering a running state, despite the build controller doing the right thing.

select {
case event := <-buildWatch.ResultChan():
build := event.Object.(*buildapi.Build)
if build.Status.Phase == buildapi.BuildPhasePending {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same new phase question here

@csrwng
Copy link
Contributor

csrwng commented Oct 18, 2017

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 18, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bparees, csrwng

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Oct 18, 2017

/retest

exutil "github.com/openshift/origin/test/extended/util"
)

// this test is very latency sensitive so run it by itself (serially).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please update comment

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks, done.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 19, 2017
@bparees bparees added kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. retest-not-required labels Oct 19, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 19, 2017
@bparees bparees added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 19, 2017
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Oct 19, 2017

/retest

2 similar comments
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Oct 19, 2017

/retest

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor Author

bparees commented Oct 20, 2017

/retest

@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 7dac14f into openshift:master Oct 20, 2017
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@bparees: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_builds e3f96da link /test extended_builds

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Details

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@bparees bparees deleted the fix_extended branch October 25, 2017 07:35
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/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. retest-not-required size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants