Skip to content

Conversation

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor

This PR adds ability to customize worker type of ipi-aws workflow.

I'd appreciate feedback if that's a good direction how to add such customization.

Follow-up to https://issues.redhat.com/browse/DPTP-1740.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dsimansk
To complete the pull request process, please assign abhinavdahiya after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @abhinavdahiya in a comment when ready.

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

Details 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

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor Author

I guess I've placed the env var too low in the hierarchy.

 time="2020-11-18T11:10:49Z" level=error msg="Failed to get resolved config for test" error="failed resolve ReleaseBuildConfiguration: Failed resolve MultiStageTestConfiguration: e2e-test: openshift-e2e-aws: ipi-aws-pre: ipi-conf-aws: ipi-conf-aws: unresolved parameter: COMPUTE_WORKER" org=openshift repo=release 

@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@dsimansk: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/pj-rehearse 23c47e1 link /test pj-rehearse

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

Copy link
Member

@petr-muller petr-muller left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is currently discussed in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/DPTP-1740. This PR would do the job, but it would make jobs that would use this platform-dependent. We're discussing the option of providing a platform-agnostic set of parameters that would be respected by all workflows in that JIRA, so I'd like to wait for that discussion before merging this.

/hold

default: 'null'
documentation: |-
The env var COMPUTE_WORKER defines type of flavour used for worker nodes, e.g. on AWS some tests may require larger m4.xlarge machines.
The default value "null" honours openshift-installer preset.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This should go directly to the step (the -ref.yaml file), not to the chain. The step needs to be usable on it's own.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tried that in my initial commit 5b4f423, but it failed other tests. Anyway let's wait for the outcome of DPTP-1740.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 18, 2020
- chain: ipi-conf-aws
- chain: ipi-install
env:
- name: COMPUTE_WORKER
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: I think this should be COMPUTE_NODE_TYPE to distinguish from other compute properties (e.g. zones).

- name: COMPUTE_WORKER
default: 'null'
documentation: |-
The env var COMPUTE_WORKER defines type of flavour used for worker nodes, e.g. on AWS some tests may require larger m4.xlarge machines.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: "The env var COMPUTE_WORKER" is already clear from context. Maybe just open with "The instance type to use for compute nodes, ..." or some such? Maybe link https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ ?

Personally, I'd prefer platform-agnostic values like memory_24G_cpu_10 that got translated in the step to a suitable instance type. That would allow jobs that needed larger compute to be platform-agnostic without needing folks to guess "hmm, I bet they don't need all of the m4.xlarge properties, and I can use $WHATEVER when I pivot the job to GCP", etc. But I'm fine with platform-specific values as a first pass.

@wking
Copy link
Member

wking commented Dec 15, 2020

Replaced by #14350, which just landed.

/close

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@wking: Closed this PR.

Details

In response to this:

Replaced by #14350, which just landed.

/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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants