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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Remove build \!remote flags from test #8170

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 18, 2020
Merged

Remove build \!remote flags from test #8170

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 18, 2020

Conversation

rhatdan
Copy link
Member

@rhatdan rhatdan commented Oct 27, 2020

Add some more tests, document cases where remote will not work
Add FIXMEs for tests that should work on podman-remote but currently
do not.

Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh [email protected]

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rhatdan

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 27, 2020
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Oct 27, 2020

More tests for podman-remote to keep @edsantiago happy. :^)

ashley-cui
ashley-cui reviewed Oct 27, 2020
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/push_test.go Outdated
@@ -163,6 +165,7 @@ var _ = Describe("Podman push", func() {
})

It("podman push to docker-archive", func() {
SkipIfRemote("Rootless push does not support docker-archive transport")
Copy link
Member

@ashley-cui ashley-cui Oct 27, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not entirely familiar, should this be SkipIfRootless? Or should it say Remote push? And the tests after this one as well

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes this should say Remote push does not support. Will wait to see what tests pass.

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

Changes LGTM, but tests aren't hip.

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member

Test failures are all timeouts. Restarted.

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member

Timeouts again. I noticed today that in my own PR, remote tests were taking 1h24. Given that the CI timeout is 90m, I think we have to speed up remote tests before we can merge this.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Oct 28, 2020

@baude I think we have to wait for you to speed up remote tests.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Nov 17, 2020

@baude These tests are still failing on 1.30 minutes timeout?

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member

Weird: the logs in all four int remote cases show that it successfully finished all tests, and was dumping the timing results. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that in all four cases the tests completed, then a timeout happened in a printf loop that should take less than a second. I'm suspecting some sort of cleanup timeout: is it possible that something in this PR is leaving behind a process, perhaps an unkillable one, and the e2e tests are hanging on wait at the end?

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Nov 17, 2020

@edsantiago That would make sense. But I am not sure which one. I could start to break these up into separate PRs to try to narrow it down.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Nov 17, 2020

@edsantiago Split the PR in 2 to see if one can pass.
#8379

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Nov 18, 2020

@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL
This adds a bunch more tests.

vrothberg
vrothberg reviewed Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
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

edsantiago
edsantiago reviewed Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/containers_conf_test.go Outdated
@@ -81,11 +83,17 @@ var _ = Describe("Podman run", func() {

It("podman Capabilities in containers.conf", func() {
os.Setenv("CONTAINERS_CONF", "config/containers.conf")
if IsRemote() {
podmanTest.RestartRemoteService()
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is probably just ginkgo-ignorance on my part, but: given that BeforeEach() already does this (Setenv,Restart), why is it necessary in this case, and lines 104-107, 118-121, and 132-135? (93-97 is correct because it changes the envariable).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It most likely is not.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removed

@rhatdan rhatdan force-pushed the remote branch 2 times, most recently from 950ecdc to 6562c36 Compare November 18, 2020 13:50
@rhatdan
Remove build \!remote flags from test
080ccf5 
Add some more tests, document cases where remote will not work
Add FIXMEs for tests that should work on podman-remote but currently
do not.

Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh <[email protected]>
@edsantiago
Copy link
Member

This was a horrible scary set of failures but it turned out to be a flake. Has anyone seen these before?

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Nov 18, 2020

Error: unable to obtain cgroup stats: open /sys/fs/cgroup/pids/pids.current: no such file or directory

Believe this one's an old friend, no?

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member

This one, I don't recognize. cgroup.freeze is my old CI-flake friend, not this one. The closest I can find is #5728 but that's over six months old (and closed).

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 18, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 18, 2020
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Nov 18, 2020

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 18, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 8672c4d into containers:master Nov 18, 2020
@edsantiago edsantiago mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2020
Closed
@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 24, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 24, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@ashley-cui ashley-cui ashley-cui left review comments

@vrothberg vrothberg vrothberg left review comments

@edsantiago edsantiago edsantiago left review comments

Assignees

@edsantiago edsantiago

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.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@rhatdan @openshift-ci-robot @TomSweeneyRedHat @edsantiago @mheon @vrothberg @ashley-cui @openshift-merge-robot