[release-3.4]: vendor: update bbolt v1.3.4, zap v1.14.1

[hexfusion]

This is a manual backport of #11709 which bumps bbolt to v1.3.4 and is required for golang 1.14+ compatability. This falls into the go maintenance plan for release-3.4 [1]which should be compatable with both golang 1.12 and golang 1.15.

[1] #12840

cc @lilic

[hexfusion]

My assumption was that we were currently testing release-3.4 with go 1.15 but if that were true we would see unit tests fail.

ref: etcd-io/bbolt#201

[hexfusion]

I see so we still need to implement 1.15 testing

ref: #12840 (comment)

[lilic]

hmm we implemented go 1.15 testing, but this was in Travis see PR #12849, maybe we disabled Travis altogether for this release branch as well and didn't port the tests to github actions?

cc @marek @ptabor any clue, seems like only semaphoreci is run?

[serathius]

Not sure about why Travis didn't run at all. We still run travis on main branch so there is no reason for someone disabling it. It's possible that there were some changes in Organization/Project Travis integration but that should not affect single branch.

I have seen some historical cases in other projects where something broke on Travis side (for example travis domain migration required a re-authorization on Project side). I would propose to re-trigger CI by pushing the branch again.

[lilic]

It seems like it didn't run here either #13100 for example.

[hexfusion]

pushed and still doesn't run will take a peak.

[hexfusion]

Took a look at it appears that we have an issue with the travis account possibly billing.

Could not authorize build request for etcd-io/etcd.

ref: https://travis-ci.com/github/etcd-io/etcd/requests?requestId=569359993

[lilic]

Nice catch! I guess someone should reach out to travis via the account?

Also, the etcd repo should make it required for travis job to pass so it doesn't show up green here which can be misleading. You can configure per branch different settings and require it.

[hexfusion]

cc @spzala do you have direct access to the Travis account for billing or do we need to go through CNCF?

[hexfusion]

cc @gyuho

[spzala]

cc @spzala do you have direct access to the Travis account for billing or do we need to go through CNCF?

@hexfusion I think it's good to ask for help at CNCF first. Let me open a ticket for support. I agree with you that, per travis doc, the error means some issue with subscription. Thanks!

[lilic]

Should we also backport the GitHub actions work to 3.4 release branch as well?

[hexfusion]

I believe this is the only sustainable path.

[serathius]

Do you need help with that? I did the migration for 3.5, happy to help here too.

[lilic]

@serathius that would be great, thank you! ✨ Unless any objections of migrating the release-3.4 branch to github actions away from travis due to above-mentioned issues @ptabor @gyuho @spzala?

[spzala]

@lilic @hexfusion +1 migrating to GitHub actions. That's a CNCF recommendation as well. @serathius thanks for helping!

[hexfusion]

TestV3WatchCancellation

This failure seems a common problem locally I get very odd result

=== RUN   TestV3WatchCancellation
    v3_watch_test.go:1253: expected 3 watch, got -11

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed after 21 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.