packit: Build PRs into default packit COPRs #1260
Conversation
|
@martinpitt the main reason for having RE: Responding to comment from #1256:
So, what I'm trying to understand is if we change from |
|
Moving to draft, this still needs fixing to include the packit-next COPR. But I didn't want to spend a lot of work on this before discussing.
How do you mean? Each PR gets its own COPR, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/packit/containers-crun-1260 in this case (note the PR number), and they get deleted after a month or so.
Possibly -- the test could do some dnf incantation with the right amount of
The "special" bit is just that they get auto-created per PR. Not quite -- you switch from a single COPR for all PRs of all projects to one COPR per project PR. That's the whole point of it, to isolate PRs from one another. Note that podman-next is already past the point of "collisions" -- main commits are serialized and vetted (hopefully) to not break other bits; while open PRs are parallel and can be arbitrarily broken. |
It'd been quite a while since I used the default copr, so I'd forgotten it created a unique copr for every PR. My bad.
In cockpit project, do you do anything to get a quick view of packit failures or do you simply navigate to failures from the PR status? I'm kinda tempted to try some dnf stuff, but I do see it becoming a problem often. So, all things considered, I'm fine with the ephemeral unique copr for @martinpitt I welcome PRs from you if you got the time. If not, I can make the changes myself as and when I get the chance. |
The latter -- we rarely feel the need for such a "quick view". Unless COPR has an infra problem (which is very rarely the case), our fedora-stable and centos builds are always green when landing a PR, i.e. build failures in a PR are the fault of the PR and get sorted out right there. Rawhide is different -- there things do "spontaneously" (from our POV) combust, and if that is outside of our reach, we just have to complain/file a bug/wait until it is resolved. But then that failure will happen in all PRs anyway, so it's very easy to find an instance. That is a decision that your team has to make:
As you currently enable rawhide, I kept it enabled as well. If/once it gets too much on your nerve, it's easy to change the "fedora-all" to "fedora-stable".
Yes, makes sense. I suppose you mean "for all projects", so let's get working PRs for all projects that currently build into the packit-builds repo, and then land them together only once they work. So far this was just a proposal to gauge if you even want this. |
Building all PRs of all container projects into the same COPR does not properly isolate PRs from each other: E.g. a podman PR currently runs against whichever crun PR was opened/updated last; in other words, sending a broken crun PR will instantly break tests for all subsequent podman runs. To avoid that, change the copr_build configuration to use the packit default COPRs, which are specific to the particular PR, and disappear after a few weeks. Depending projects like podman should only run against what landed in crun/main, i.e. the podman-next COPR. Note that this does not preclude testing a podman PR against a crun PR: This can be explicitly requested [1]. But most PRs don't change the API and thus should default to isolation. [1] https://packit.dev/posts/testing-farm-triggering Signed-off-by: Martin Pitt <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@martinpitt This actually works out better given we can now easily add rhel-N-$ARCH buildroots without fighting the copr settings.
LGTM.
|
@lsm5 : FTR, I have a half-done gvisor-tap-vsock on my disk (just in a meeting). I think I can do skopeo (the last one) too still today. |
sgtm, no rush, thanks! Appreciate the quick turnaround. I'm gonna add rhel targets to these soon as we have rhel testing on our agenda as well. |
|
Cool, I didn't know that we could run RHEL testing in public upstream PRs. Do you need to send @thrix some special 🍺 💝 for that? 😁 |
containers/container-selinux#260
i'll need to buy him a year's supply at least. I hope I can file it as a company expense 😆 |
Building all PRs of all container projects into the same COPR does not properly isolate PRs from each other: E.g. a podman PR currently runs against whichever crun PR was opened/updated last; in other words, sending a broken crun PR will instantly break tests for all subsequent podman runs.
To avoid that, change the copr_build configuration to use the packit default COPRs, which are specific to the particular PR, and disappear after a few weeks. Depending projects like podman should only run against what landed in crun/main, i.e. the podman-next COPR.
Note that this does not preclude testing a podman PR against a crun PR: This can be explicitly requested [1]. But most PRs don't change the API and thus should default to isolation.
[1] https://packit.dev/posts/testing-farm-triggering
See the discussion in #1256 for the background, hello @lsm5 . I kept the same COPR targets as https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rhcontainerbot/podman-next/ . If you agree, I'm happy to send the same change to podman, container-selinux (other projects?), afterwards the packit-builds COPR can be removed. However, I'm not aware why you chose to do it that way in the first place? I.e. do you need the packit-builds COPR for anything else? Then I'd recommend to at least having one PR build COPR per project, not one for the whole org and cross-project testing.
Working PRs for all current packages in the packit-builds COPR. Once they are all ready, they need to land together. The green ones (ready for review) need review and work; the gray ones (draft) still fail, I'm looking into them: