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

test: download Vault binaries for e2e test #6938

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 27, 2020
Merged

test: download Vault binaries for e2e test #6938

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 27, 2020

Conversation

schmichael
Copy link
Member

Modernize Vault integration/e2e test a bit:

  • Download from releases.hashicorp.com instead of using a hardcoded list
  • Remove old unused make target e2e-test
  • Use NOMAD_E2E env var instead of -integration flag
  • Add a README

On my machine with ~250 Mbps internet it takes ~400s to download all
Vault binaries.

Modernize Vault integration/e2e test a bit:

- Download from releases.hashicorp.com instead of using a hardcoded list
- Remove old unused make target e2e-test
- Use NOMAD_E2E env var instead of -integration flag
- Add a README

On my machine with ~250 Mbps internet it takes ~400s to download all
Vault binaries.
@schmichael schmichael requested review from dadgar and tgross January 14, 2020 19:06
Copy link
Member

@tgross tgross left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 Code changes LGTM, just a couple docs/config questions.

Run with:

```
NOMAD_E2E=1 go test
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd update this to specifically call out running this test, i.e. NOMAD_E2E=1 go test -run TestVaultCompatibility

If we implement this in the e2e Framework, we could mark it as a “slow” test when we running the tests locally against, say, AWS clusters. but until the stuff I’m working on for provisioning updates lands (tomorrowish?) those constraints don’t really seem to work completely so probably better to keep it as-is.

GNUmakefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
g.Go(func() error {
return h.get(version)
sema <- 1
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[Aside]: A pattern I have seen used a lot is to launch the number of workers you want and have them loop over a channel. And then you can have a go routine pushing into the channel.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that works great when the number of concurrent tasks (downloads in this case) is large, unknown, or unbounded, but when the number of tasks is small this route is less loops and nesting.

@tgross
Copy link
Member

tgross commented Jan 22, 2020

I think this is good to merge now, @schmichael ?

@schmichael schmichael merged commit b9394da into master Jan 27, 2020
@schmichael schmichael deleted the e2e-vault branch January 27, 2020 18:26
@github-actions
Copy link

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 120 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 19, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants