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

e2e tests: reenable long-skipped build test #17164

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 19, 2023

Conversation

edsantiago
Copy link
Member

July 2022: test was flaking on new VM images. We needed new
images, so I filed #15014 and skipped the test.

January 2023: no attention from anyone, so I'll try bumping up
a dd timeout from 10s to 30s. But in the interim, the test
has broken: it used to expect "Containerfile" in output (this
was deliberately added in #13655)... but #16810 changed that
so Containerfile no longer appears. @flouthoc argues that
this too is deliberate (#17059). Okay, so let's change the
test then. All I care about is not adding more regressions.

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago [email protected]

None

July 2022: test was flaking on new VM images. We needed new
images, so I filed containers#15014 and skipped the test.

January 2023: no attention from anyone, so I'll try bumping up
a dd timeout from 10s to 30s. But in the interim, the test
has broken: it used to expect "Containerfile" in output (this
was deliberately added in containers#13655)... but containers#16810 changed that
so Containerfile no longer appears. @flouthoc argues that
this too is deliberate (containers#17059). Okay, so let's change the
test then. All I care about is not adding more regressions.

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added release-note-none approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Jan 19, 2023
@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

@flouthoc PTAL (low priority)

Copy link
Collaborator

@flouthoc flouthoc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
Thanks, Ed!

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 19, 2023
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 19, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, flouthoc, vrothberg

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:
  • OWNERS [edsantiago,flouthoc,vrothberg]

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

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 17f89c9 into containers:main Jan 19, 2023
@edsantiago edsantiago deleted the unskip_15014 branch January 19, 2023 12:53
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 14, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 14, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants