Skip to content
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

Refactoring in sidecar test #2733

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 5, 2020
Merged

Conversation

piyush-garg
Copy link
Contributor

It will now run as parallel and also will create a
namespace
Use simple busybox image

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

See the contribution guide for more details.

Double check this list of stuff that's easy to miss:

Reviewer Notes

If API changes are included, additive changes must be approved by at least two OWNERS and backwards incompatible changes must be approved by more than 50% of the OWNERS, and they must first be added in a backwards compatible way.

Release Notes

Refactor in sidecar e2e

It will now run as parallel and also will create a
nmespace
Use simple busybox image
@tekton-robot tekton-robot requested review from a user and vdemeester June 2, 2020 18:58
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 2, 2020
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR cannot be merged: expecting exactly one kind/ label

Available kind/ labels are:

kind/bug: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug.
kind/flake: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test
kind/cleanup: Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt.
kind/design: Categorizes issue or PR as related to design.
kind/documentation: Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation.
kind/feature: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
kind/misc: Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one.

1 similar comment
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR cannot be merged: expecting exactly one kind/ label

Available kind/ labels are:

kind/bug: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug.
kind/flake: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test
kind/cleanup: Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt.
kind/design: Categorizes issue or PR as related to design.
kind/documentation: Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation.
kind/feature: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
kind/misc: Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one.

@piyush-garg
Copy link
Contributor Author

/kind flake

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the kind/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test label Jun 2, 2020
Copy link
Member

@vdemeester vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/cc @sbwsg

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 3, 2020
@@ -62,13 +67,13 @@ func TestSidecarTaskSupport(t *testing.T) {
task := tb.Task(sidecarTaskName,
tb.TaskSpec(
tb.Step(
"busybox:1.31.0-musl",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this! Couple questions:

  1. Could you add something to the commit message explaining why this is preferred?
  2. What is this doing now? Pulling in ":latest"? If so, should we simply pin to today's "latest" version / digest so that it remains a constant going forward for our tests? If not, why?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. There is no such difference to prefer, the job required can be done by busybox image and we are using that in many e2e tests, while busybox image based on musl is used only in this test so it will avoid this image pulling. I just used a simple busybox image as for the e2e test, it is just doing echo and doesn't have any scenario to use the alpine based image.

  2. If you see all the e2e tests, in every test except one it is justbusybox so I used it here also the same way.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fantastic, thanks for explaining. I didn't know that this was what we use everywhere else so it's good to know.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would be great to get this in the commit message too. Even when something is extremely obvious it really helps to have the context of the change described. Otherwise I need to just "somehow" know.

@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbwsg

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 5, 2020
@piyush-garg
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests

@tekton-robot tekton-robot merged commit 3c3c5e2 into tektoncd:master Jun 5, 2020
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/flake Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. 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.

3 participants