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

Backport smoketest in master to 1.8 #13020

Closed
sayboras opened this issue Aug 31, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

Backport smoketest in master to 1.8 #13020

sayboras opened this issue Aug 31, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
area/CI Continuous Integration testing issue or flake

Comments

@sayboras
Copy link
Member

There are a few things related to smoke test got introduced after 1.8:

  • IPv4 Multi-node cluster
  • IPv6 only multi-node cluster

The above can be considered to be backported to 1.8 branch. This will help with recent changes for HA operator, which requires multi node cluster.

Related PR comment #13004 (comment)

/cc @aanm @kaworu

@sayboras sayboras added the area/CI Continuous Integration testing issue or flake label Aug 31, 2020
@joestringer
Copy link
Member

joestringer commented Sep 4, 2020

Do you mean that we hope that we can validate the HA operator behaviour on v1.8 with more certainty if we backport the smoketest, therefore we should do so?

Basically I'm wondering what the difference is between running such tests against master (where all code lands, including fixes that will be backported) vs. on the v1.8 branch (where the actual code for v1.8.x releases lives, so we know we're testing the full same paths).

(I don't have a particular inclination either away, I'm just aware that every backport we make is a bit of extra time&attention we pay so it'd be good to ensure there's a positive impact of that work)

@kaworu
Copy link
Member

kaworu commented Sep 7, 2020

I am neutral about this and not familiar with the smoke tests. The only reason I've been ignoring smoke test related diff from #13004 was because the goal was backporting #12948 (which is unrelated to smoke tests).

@sayboras
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for your comment, consider that there is flake in #12279, I just park this issue here till flake is resolved, and also can hear from others well.

@sayboras
Copy link
Member Author

Closing this one, I think the current smoke test setup with master + 1.9 is good enough.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/CI Continuous Integration testing issue or flake
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants