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

proposal for multiple configmaps #112 #113

Closed
wants to merge 21 commits into from

Conversation

skogie
Copy link

@skogie skogie commented Aug 28, 2020

WIP for issue #112
860 tests passed with tox -e test
Wasnt able to run the integration-test module it kept crashing so if there is more to be done here let me know.

@skogie skogie requested a review from a team as a code owner August 28, 2020 12:50
Copy link
Contributor

@tg90nor tg90nor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the contribution! Overall, this looks pretty good.

There should be some docs about this feature in https://github.com/fiaas/fiaas-deploy-daemon/blob/master/docs/v3_spec.md

I would also like to see some tests verifying the behaviour with 0, 1 and multiple configmaps defined for an app

Finally a small nit: I would like to see all occurences of config_maps renamed into configmaps, as that is how it is usually written when all lowercase

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Aug 28, 2020

The integration tests seem flaky on my machine if anyone could try to run them and give me feedback I would appreciate it!

@tg90nor
Copy link
Contributor

tg90nor commented Aug 28, 2020

Results (893.49s):
     140 passed
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ summary _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  integration_test: commands succeeded
  congratulations :)

Copy link
Contributor

@gregjones gregjones left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like the idea, and it mostly looks good with just a couple of things I think should be clarified.

I also think Morten's comment from the issue, about also exposing them via volume-mounts makes sense - is there a reason not to do that?

docs/v3_spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Greg Jones <[email protected]>
@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Sep 1, 2020

I like the idea, and it mostly looks good with just a couple of things I think should be clarified.

I also think Morten's comment from the issue, about also exposing them via volume-mounts makes sense - is there a reason not to do that?

I was not aware of the volume-mounts, but yeah i should add those aswell!

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Sep 7, 2020

@mortenlj pushed some changes now, what do you think?

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

mortenlj commented Sep 7, 2020

Starting to look good. The only thing I'd like to change is expanding the documentation with detailing of how precedence works for the added configmaps as we have discussed.

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

mortenlj commented Oct 3, 2020

@skogie : Any chance you could sort out the documentation and maybe this can be merged?
@gregjones : What do you think, good?

Copy link
Contributor

@gregjones gregjones left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 on the docs, and an extra thing I think should be included. We should also make sure CI runs, right?

docs/v3_spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Oct 5, 2020

I will try to get the remaining changes out tomorrow. Missing some tests and documentation.

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

What's the state of this PR, any movement?

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Nov 16, 2020

@mortenlj I have been working on getting the tests to work locally but rn i have a round-trip of around 20 minutes per integration_test-run and its still not passing here, I think everything should be correct but could you try to run it on your end?

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

I have been working on getting the tests to work locally but rn i have a round-trip of around 20 minutes per integration_test-run and its still not passing here, I think everything should be correct but could you try to run it on your end?

@skogie : The last run seems to fail because of codestyle issues. Should be enough to fix those. To just run the codestyle tests, use tox -e codestyle (which is significantly quicker than waiting for the full set of tests).

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Nov 17, 2020

@mortenlj I also have failing tests with tox -e integration_test, not sure if the CI server is running those?

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Nov 17, 2020

Results (16.41s):00:33
     866 passed​00:33
___________________________________ summary ____________________________________00:33
  codestyle: commands succeeded00:33
  test: commands succeeded00:33
  congratulations :)

tests seems to be running but the tox -e integration_test does not seem to be a part of the testing

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

tests seems to be running but the tox -e integration_test does not seem to be a part of the testing

Yes, we've hit #131

@oyvindio : Did you do any more research on that issue?

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Nov 17, 2020

@mortenlj is it possible for you to run it locally to see if they actually pass, or if there is anything else i need to fix? I don't think they are working correctly on my machine

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Nov 17, 2020

Fixed most of the tests now, but I still don't understand why these 2 are failing if someone could help me out: https://gist.github.com/skogie/4a786ff9ceec17a26466a3221819dbab and https://gist.github.com/skogie/0b480f01f46fd438e033134ef7a86de5

@oyvindio
Copy link
Member

Yes, we've hit #131

@oyvindio : Did you do any more research on that issue?

It is on my list, but haven't been able to look into it further yet unfortunately. The only "workaround" I'm aware of to get the e2e tests to run before that issue is fixed, is to push the branch from the fork to a new branch on the source repository, which admittedly isn't a great solution

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Nov 25, 2020

Would be nice to try to run it on the CI-server now if possible.

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

/sem-approve

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

I triggered a build directly in Semaphore after changing some settings which I hope doesn't expose our docker secrets to all PRs... 🙂
Also, I think perhaps, maybe, the above comment didn't work then, but should work now...

Copy link
Contributor

@gregjones gregjones left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks very nice now 👍
I noticed the copyright years in the new files aren't updated though, sorry to be picky. I've added the suggested changes with this review.

skogie and others added 5 commits November 26, 2020 19:14
Co-authored-by: Greg Jones <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Greg Jones <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Greg Jones <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Greg Jones <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Greg Jones <[email protected]>
@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

@gregjones : This looks good now, doesn't it?

We still haven't figured out how to get Semaphore to build from forks automatically I guess, but I'll see if I can trigger something...

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

/sem-approve

Copy link
Contributor

@gregjones gregjones left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@skogie
Copy link
Author

skogie commented Mar 1, 2021

@mortenlj looks like the build is failing now because some of the tasks are not running, can we try to trigger a new build and see if we can merge it?

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

mortenlj commented Mar 1, 2021

/sem-approve

@oyvindio
Copy link
Member

oyvindio commented Mar 3, 2021

/sem-approve

@mortenlj
Copy link
Member

I have a feeling this PR can be closed ... ?

@tg90nor tg90nor closed this Jan 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants