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

Run acceptance tests in travis #11

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 30, 2018

Conversation

tvpartytonight
Copy link
Contributor

@tvpartytonight tvpartytonight commented Nov 28, 2018

This PR adds configuration to the travis yml to run rake acceptance.

@tvpartytonight tvpartytonight force-pushed the run_acceptance_in_travis branch 2 times, most recently from 4c2ee66 to afa7f55 Compare November 29, 2018 22:41
@petems
Copy link
Member

petems commented Nov 29, 2018

I think we'll have to do something to make this work, because I think the Vox settings will just overwrite this when modulesync happens...

@bastelfreak am I right?

@@ -22,6 +23,9 @@ matrix:
- rvm: 2.4.4
bundler_args: --without system_tests development release
env: PUPPET_VERSION="~> 5.0" CHECK=build DEPLOY_TO_FORGE=yes
- rvm: 2.5.1
bundler_args: --without development release
env: CHECK=acceptance
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

all the changes in this file need to go in the sync yaml

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I manually just synced the added cell without using pdk update...is that ok?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't yet use pdk, we currently use https://github.com/voxpupuli/modulesync_config/ as template for our modules.

This commit adds configuration to the travis yml to run `rake acceptance`.
Before this change, there was some tomfoolery around moving the certs onto the
puppetserver, which result in strange and inconsistent behavior when the
certificate file locations were modified while the puppetserver was running.

This change separates out those certs to a specific image that both the vault
and puppetserver images use, making the initialization of puppetserver cleaner
without having to restart it.
This change allows the protocol to be http only.
@tvpartytonight tvpartytonight force-pushed the run_acceptance_in_travis branch from afa7f55 to 7cab293 Compare November 30, 2018 01:03
@tvpartytonight
Copy link
Contributor Author

@petems I don't think there are any problems with modulesync; there's an obtuse error when mocking out the http_instance method call that I fixed, so it passes travis now.

@petems
Copy link
Member

petems commented Nov 30, 2018

@tvpartytonight Sorry should have clarified, not a test error, but the The VoxPop modulesync will overwrite the Travis config AFAIK (https://github.com/voxpupuli/modulesync_config)

But I'm super behind the times so might not be the case anymore 🤷‍♂️

@Magisus
Copy link

Magisus commented Nov 30, 2018

It looks like maybe the Travis file is generated from this ERB template: https://github.com/voxpupuli/modulesync_config/blob/master/moduleroot/.travis.yml.erb. So I wonder if it would overwrite the services: docker field we added. Might we need to update that template to allow for specifying things like docker?

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
FROM alpine:3.8
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We normally try to generate the dokerfiles on the fly by using https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker-hostgenerator, but this one looks pretty specific, so a custom file is fine.

@bastelfreak
Copy link
Member

Hey people, thanks for enabling the acceptance tests. I will merge this now and afterwards have a look at the modulesync integration.

@bastelfreak bastelfreak merged commit 5f1d0ec into voxpupuli:master Nov 30, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants