feature: Add qa-automation orb #82
Conversation
DReigada
requested review from
paulopontesm,
h314to,
carlospinho04,
BrunoMedley,
pedrocodacy,
medleycodacy,
joaocosta-codacy and
jonathancarvalheiro
DReigada
requested review from
andreaTP,
bmbferreira,
lolgab and
rtfpessoa
as code owners
DReigada
force-pushed
the
feature/add-qa-automation-job
branch
from
9dc7ce9
to
3ca4751
Compare
DReigada
force-pushed
the
feature/add-qa-automation-job
branch
from
bcfd248
to
0be70b0
Compare
DReigada
force-pushed
the
feature/add-qa-automation-job
branch
from
0be70b0
to
3c29480
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ | |||
| parameters: | |||
| test_path: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand what this parameter does.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's the path to the test suite to run, which is locate inside the docker image
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so we have a fixed number of possibilities?
can we list them, at least in a comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can provide the list:
Dev -> Suite/API/DEV.xml,Suite/WEB/DEV.xml,Suite/WEB/DEV2.xml,Suite/E2E/DEV.xml
Staging -> Suite/API/DEV.xml,Suite/WEB/STAGING.xml,Suite/WEB/STAGING.xml,Suite/E2E/STAGING.xml
Prod -> Suite/API/PROD.xml,Suite/WEB/PROD.xml,Suite/E2E/PROD.xml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New suites can be added, it seems too cumbersome to add them here every time there's a change in the qa-automation repo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I suggest doing is adding to the description a link to the qa-automation repo, where all files are located
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree into keeping this list in the qa-automation-test repository, and here we keep a link.
Works for you @jonathancarvalheiro ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems good, or directly to this link: https://handbook.dev.codacy.org/product/engineering/QA/feature-test-process.html#suites-to-run-for-each-environment, what you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
up to you, either way I'm good with it 👍
| test_path: | ||
| description: "The path to the test suite to run" | ||
| type: string | ||
| project_name: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have a fixed number of option I suppose, can we list them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure. @medleycodacy @jonathancarvalheiro any idea?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@andreaTP Could not be fixed number, since you can create your specific project on RP. But we can suggest or have a default :qa-automation-tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so this parameter should be called possibly:
report_portal_project_name correct?
@jonathancarvalheiro what happens if we set a name that is not "registered" already in RP?
Do we have a little description on how to "create a project" in RP?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll leave the description in here.
Create a project on RP.
- Go to the RP and login with the superadmin user (check Bitwarden for that).
- Click on the right top corner in the user options, and select Administrate.
- Click on the Add New Project button, and define the project name.
Something like this, @andreaTP ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add that to the docs of the qa-automation repo?
And add a link to there in this description?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes @jonathancarvalheiro but I think @DReigada suggestion stands. please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created PR to handbook: https://github.com/codacy/handbook/pull/16/files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| project_name: | ||
| description: "The name of the project in report portal" | ||
| type: string | ||
| launch_name: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this a parameter for report portal? in case I suggest to call it report_portal_name or something alike
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would rather keep the name and improve the description.
By using this orb you know that you are reporting to report portal, it seems redundant to "report_portal" to the name of the variables
There was a problem hiding this comment.
here some parameters are referring to the qa-automation-test suite itself and other to the RP integration.
At best of my knowledge you can disable the integration with report_portal (@jonathancarvalheiro can you confirm?)
so
By using this orb you know that you are reporting to report portal
is not correct
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not configurable, the only way it's not to set the RP parameters. I'll check if the docker image works without setting the RP parameters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I checked, and it's mandatory to have the RP parameters defined.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I purpose to leave like it is right now, and when I put this as a configuration, I do a PR in here as well.
| description: "The name to give to the test launch" | ||
| type: string | ||
| default: EXTERNAL_TEST_RUN | ||
| launch_description: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the comment above apply here as well
| description: "The description to give to the test launch" | ||
| type: string | ||
| default: "Automated Tests Ran by CircleCI" | ||
| launch_tag: |
| LAUNCH_NAME: << parameters.launch_name >> | ||
| LAUNCH_DESCRIPTION: << parameters.launch_description >> | ||
| LAUNCH_TAG: << parameters.launch_tag >> | ||
| RP_ENDPOINT: https://reportportal.dev.codacy.org |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this URL should be a parameter, isn't it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The report portal URL is always the same, we only have one instance. Making this a parameter seems it will only increase the complexity of the parameters
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I think I'm outdated ... we used to have an instance per environment (@jonathancarvalheiro ?).
Since this code is public I don't know if we should keep this url hardcoded here, I think the best is to have it in env variable in the context.
We don't "publicize" our internal infrastructure urls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@andreaTP, no we always had one instance for all environments.
But I agree as using that with an environment variable on the circle ci e.g.
There's some that we have to set on the circle ci in order for this to work:
RP_ENDPOINT; ENCRYPTION_KEY; RP_CIRCLECI_UUID
Could worth to be mentioned.
|
this has cobwebs already 🕸️ closing since this diverged in so many ways that it would not be helpful to re-start this from this PR |
No description provided.