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
Add E2E coverage for Trace and Logging #199
Conversation
.github/workflows/CI.yaml
Outdated
paths-ignore: | ||
- "*.md" | ||
- "*.txt" | ||
- ".asf.yaml" | ||
- ".dlc.json" | ||
- ".licenserc.yaml" | ||
- "docs/*" | ||
- ".github/workflows/*" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pull requests require the CI check status context named CheckStatus
to pass before they can be merged. And the check context is generated by the job CheckStatus
in this file (line 123), if changes are in these paths-ignore
, the workflow won't be run and the check status context won't be reported, thus all PRs can't be merged, you need to either remove these paths-ignore, or add a dummy workflow in a separate file that run a empty job named CheckStatus
to generate the required context, but it is hard to set the reversed condition of these paths-ignore
, you can see how I set in the main repo but that is still not perfect because under some cases the 2 workflows are all executed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah I see how it works, gonna fix it later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pull requests require the CI check status context named
CheckStatus
to pass before they can be merged. And the check context is generated by the jobCheckStatus
in this file (line 123), if changes are in thesepaths-ignore
, the workflow won't be run and the check status context won't be reported, thus all PRs can't be merged, you need to either remove these paths-ignore, or add a dummy workflow in a separate file that run a empty job namedCheckStatus
to generate the required context, but it is hard to set the reversed condition of thesepaths-ignore
, you can see how I set in the main repo but that is still not perfect because under some cases the 2 workflows are all executed
Looks like the paths_ignore option doesn't work like what I thought.. it's crazy.
Maybe the diff method is the ultimate solution given third party action cannot be run in asf repos.
Diff method:
https://github.community/t/paths-ignore-not-working-for-base-level-files/18445/4
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some third-party GHAs are approved by Apache infra and can be used, @Superskyyy take a look at this, though I haven't tried to use this GHA to achieve my goal as stated above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm gonna try it and let you know if it works.
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Changes to non-essential files passes the statuscheck with skipping I think it is complete now. @kezhenxu94 |
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I left some comments but generally is good to me
Signed-off-by: Superskyyy <superskyyy@outlook.com>
All fixed according to comments :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
@Superskyyy I think an issue is relative to this? Should we close that? |
There's the profiling feature not yet tested by E2E, but I noticed the Java agent also didn't test it, was it not necessary? |
https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/.github/workflows/skywalking.yaml#L388 agent profiling is tested in main repo. |
Ok I see it now, I got confused last time I checked the profiling e2e parts.. 😄 |
Create ref link: apache/skywalking#7708 |
@Superskyyy Ci failed in master branch https://github.com/apache/skywalking-python/runs/5747416666?check_suite_focus=true , wanna take a look? |
Yes! Fixing along with another small enhancement in log reporter.. testing on my branch now. |
Note: There's a flaky test due to a possible
{{- contains }}
issue in the Infra-e2e verifier, the logs seem to be queried in an unstable order by the CLI where later log often placed first in log list, combining with thecontains
bug, it becomes flaky.A
time.sleep()
workaround makes sure the log arrives in clear order which passes the e2e for now.