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

HDDS-3784. Use matrix build for integration test #1063

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jun 14, 2020

Conversation

adoroszlai
Copy link
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Reduce code duplication in Ozone's GitHub Actions workflow definitions by using matrix build for integration tests instead of individual jobs.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-3784

How was this patch tested?

Verified that multiple integration test runs with different profiles were executed in parallel:

https://github.com/adoroszlai/hadoop-ozone/runs/761852962
https://github.com/adoroszlai/hadoop-ozone/runs/761852971

They each uploaded separate artifacts.

Verified that coverage check waits for all of these.

@adoroszlai adoroszlai self-assigned this Jun 11, 2020
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jun 11, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #1063 into master will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1063      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     69.38%   69.40%   +0.02%     
- Complexity     9104     9111       +7     
============================================
  Files           961      961              
  Lines         48121    48121              
  Branches       4676     4676              
============================================
+ Hits          33387    33397      +10     
+ Misses        12514    12509       -5     
+ Partials       2220     2215       -5     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
...e/commandhandler/CreatePipelineCommandHandler.java 87.23% <0.00%> (-4.26%) 8.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
.../common/states/endpoint/HeartbeatEndpointTask.java 69.81% <0.00%> (-1.26%) 25.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%)
.../org/apache/hadoop/hdds/scm/pipeline/Pipeline.java 85.23% <0.00%> (-0.48%) 44.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
.../ozone/container/common/volume/AbstractFuture.java 30.12% <0.00%> (-0.26%) 20.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
.../transport/server/ratis/ContainerStateMachine.java 69.14% <0.00%> (-0.23%) 58.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%)
...apache/hadoop/ozone/client/io/KeyOutputStream.java 79.16% <0.00%> (ø) 45.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
.../apache/hadoop/ozone/om/OmMetadataManagerImpl.java 82.52% <0.00%> (+0.26%) 92.00% <0.00%> (+1.00%)
...ne/container/common/statemachine/StateContext.java 85.11% <0.00%> (+0.59%) 53.00% <0.00%> (+1.00%)
...op/ozone/client/io/BlockOutputStreamEntryPool.java 72.43% <0.00%> (+0.64%) 35.00% <0.00%> (+1.00%)
...zone/container/common/volume/MutableVolumeSet.java 75.89% <0.00%> (+0.89%) 40.00% <0.00%> (+1.00%)
... and 6 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 563507c...84692c1. Read the comment docs.

@vivekratnavel
Copy link
Contributor

@adoroszlai I like this matrix approach. Its much cleaner now. Thanks for working on this! Can you merge the latest master with this branch since recent commits involve changes in the workflow? It will be good to see another run here before merging. Thanks!

@adoroszlai
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @vivekratnavel for the review. I have merged latest workflow-related changes from master.

@vivekratnavel
Copy link
Contributor

@adoroszlai Thanks for the merge! The CI run looks good. I am merging it now.

@vivekratnavel vivekratnavel merged commit 57a8388 into apache:master Jun 14, 2020
@adoroszlai adoroszlai deleted the HDDS-3784 branch June 15, 2020 06:03
@adoroszlai
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @vivekratnavel for reviewing and merging it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants