Quadlet - Use = sign when setting the pull arg for build #24643
Conversation
test/system/252-quadlet.bats
Outdated
| [Build] | ||
| ImageTag=$image_tag | ||
| File=$container_file_path | ||
| Pull=always |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you set this to never , which policy should not matter and never is faster and less flaky as we do not have to pull
ygalblum
force-pushed
the
quadlet-build-no-space
branch
from
d64fabc to
79a7714
Compare
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
ygalblum
force-pushed
the
quadlet-build-no-space
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d64fabc to
1117059
Compare
|
A bit to late for 5.3.1 unfortunately given it was a 5.3 regression but we include it in the next one. cc @mheon /cherry-pick v5.3 |
|
@Luap99: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
|
||
| # Following issue: https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/24599 | ||
| # Make sure future changes do not break | ||
| @test "quadlet - build with pull" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is going to cause flakes. buildah cannot run in parallel, hence podman build cannot run in parallel: containers/buildah#5674
In my foolish youth, I overoptimistically added the ci:parallel tag to this entire file. That will apply here, which will cause this test to flake.
Proposed solution(?): override file_tags, or move this test into a separate file. I don't know which is better. To override, it looks like you can redefine file_tags, then redefine it again below this test. That's barfy. So is a separate file. There might be better solutions that I can't think of right now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this cause flakes even where there no layers? The Containerfile is just FROM xxx so is this already enough to trigger flakes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I honestly don't know. I've never dived deeply enough into that failure. Maybe it's OK to leave this as it is, and play the wait-and-see game.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@edsantiago I rather not have to split the files. But, I don't mind clearing the flag and setting it again around the test. Do you think it's safer? No point in running later to fix it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm really sorry... I don't know. I've never actually tried the change-file-tags trick. It seems worth a try. It also might be okay to merge as-is and see if it flakes or not: that might provide insight into the nature of the buildah-parallel bug.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, if you're OK with it, I'll keep it this way and we'll see what happens. Thanks
|
We can plan on a 5.3.2 in two weeks, given next week is a major US holiday. |
|
The windows installer failures don't seem related to this change. Is it a known consistent issue, or do I need to retry it until it's successful? |
|
I've pressed re-run. Let's see. |
|
LGTM |
|
I've pressed the test retry button. When I see "failed" tests with little to no log output, it's generally a try again situation. |
|
Anyone know why the windows tests are blowing up? Iwould force merge this, but I am not allowed to, since the Windows failures have nothing to do with this PR, as far as I can tell. |
|
The (temporary) win installer fix is in #24653 |
Signed-off-by: Ygal Blum <[email protected]>
ygalblum
force-pushed
the
quadlet-build-no-space
branch
from
1117059 to
13affe9
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Luap99, ygalblum 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 |
|
/lgtm |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit 5d7700b
into
containers:main
|
@Luap99: new pull request created: #24657 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
No
Fixes #24599