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

application-service update #2888

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 8, 2023
Merged

application-service update #2888

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 8, 2023

Conversation

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 7, 2023

Please retry analysis of this Pull-Request directly on SonarCloud.

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 7, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@maysunfaisal
Copy link
Member

/retest

Copy link
Member

@maysunfaisal maysunfaisal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@kim-tsao
Copy link
Contributor

kim-tsao commented Dec 7, 2023

/retest

1 similar comment
@maysunfaisal
Copy link
Member

/retest

@dheerajodha
Copy link
Member

/test appstudio-e2e-tests

@dheerajodha
Copy link
Member

failed on a known bug: RHTAPBUGS-1051
/test appstudio-e2e-tests

@johnmcollier
Copy link
Member

/retest

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label Dec 7, 2023
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 7, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@maysunfaisal
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/retest

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Dec 7, 2023
@dheerajodha
Copy link
Member

dheerajodha commented Dec 8, 2023

failed on RHTAPBUGS-1051 3 times in a row, I'm thinking of skipping this test, if it's failing the CI consistently...
or maybe the failure is related to the content of this PR, can't say anything with surety now.
/test appstudio-e2e-tests

@dheerajodha
Copy link
Member

/test appstudio-e2e-tests

@dheerajodha
Copy link
Member

weirdly, every CI run consistently failed on RHTAPBUGS-1051, but other PRs are getting passed without many hurdles (just hitting a few occasional bugs). Could it be due to the content of this PR...?

@johnmcollier
Copy link
Member

/retest

@johnmcollier
Copy link
Member

The only change the would potentially affect snapshots and SEBs would be redhat-appstudio/application-service#427

The remaining changes are either test changes, or affect the Component webhook (whose content is not currently reflected in e2e tests)

@kim-tsao WDYT?

@kim-tsao
Copy link
Contributor

kim-tsao commented Dec 8, 2023

The only change the would potentially affect snapshots and SEBs would be redhat-appstudio/application-service#427

The remaining changes are either test changes, or affect the Component webhook (whose content is not currently reflected in e2e tests)

@kim-tsao WDYT?

Replicas are still being set to 0
https://storage.googleapis.com/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/redhat-appstudio_infra-deployments/2888/pull-ci-redhat-appstudio-infra-deployments-main-appstudio-e2e-tests/1733096391594479616/build-log.txt

 timed out waiting for deployment of a component rhtap-demo-idyp-tenant/hacbs-test-project-3sby to become ready
  Expected success, but got an error:
      <*errors.errorString | 0xc001662430>: 
      the deployment rhtap-demo-idyp-tenant/hacbs-test-project-3sby does not have the expected amount of replicas (expected: 1, got: 0)
      {
          s: "the deployment rhtap-demo-idyp-tenant/hacbs-test-project-3sby does not have the expected amount of replicas (expected: 1, got: 0)",
      }�[0m

@dheerajodha where is the test case located?
Previous QE test that was failing was here: https://github.com/redhat-appstudio-qe/hacbs-test-project/blob/main/devfile.yaml. I verified the fix for that one. Not sure what's different with this one

@kim-tsao
Copy link
Contributor

kim-tsao commented Dec 8, 2023

The only change the would potentially affect snapshots and SEBs would be redhat-appstudio/application-service#427
The remaining changes are either test changes, or affect the Component webhook (whose content is not currently reflected in e2e tests)
@kim-tsao WDYT?

Replicas are still being set to 0 https://storage.googleapis.com/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/redhat-appstudio_infra-deployments/2888/pull-ci-redhat-appstudio-infra-deployments-main-appstudio-e2e-tests/1733096391594479616/build-log.txt

 timed out waiting for deployment of a component rhtap-demo-idyp-tenant/hacbs-test-project-3sby to become ready
  Expected success, but got an error:
      <*errors.errorString | 0xc001662430>: 
      the deployment rhtap-demo-idyp-tenant/hacbs-test-project-3sby does not have the expected amount of replicas (expected: 1, got: 0)
      {
          s: "the deployment rhtap-demo-idyp-tenant/hacbs-test-project-3sby does not have the expected amount of replicas (expected: 1, got: 0)",
      }�[0m

@dheerajodha where is the test case located? Previous QE test that was failing was here: https://github.com/redhat-appstudio-qe/hacbs-test-project/blob/main/devfile.yaml. I verified the fix for that one. Not sure what's different with this one

It looks like it's here: https://github.com/redhat-appstudio/e2e-tests/blob/main/tests/rhtap-demo/rhtap-demo.go#L288
Everything looks fine with it. It sets a component replica, deploys and waits for the status. The SEB controller calls GetResourceFromDevfile and replicas should default to 1 if unset. Do you see anything amiss @johnmcollier ?

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label Dec 8, 2023
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 8, 2023

Please retry analysis of this Pull-Request directly on SonarCloud.

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 8, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

Copy link
Member

@johnmcollier johnmcollier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/approve
/lgtm

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 8, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: johnmcollier, maysunfaisal, rh-tap-build-team[bot]

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

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 8, 2023

@rh-tap-build-team[bot]: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/appstudio-hac-e2e-tests e6d47da link false /test appstudio-hac-e2e-tests

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 917d650 into main Dec 8, 2023
7 of 8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants