Skip to content

Conversation

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 commented Aug 26, 2025

First a change in .cirrus.yml must run all tests we cannot skip them as we might chnage what tasks are being executed and how, i.e. an CI image update must always run all tests.

Second use only_if and not skip, skip will bloat the task overview with plenty of tasks so it is harder to see what was actully run then. that is consitent with how we do it in podman.

First a change in .cirrus.yml must run all tests we cannot skip them as
we might chnage what tasks are being executed and how, i.e. an CI image
update must always run all tests.

Second use only_if and not skip, skip will bloat the task overview with
plenty of tasks so it is harder to see what was actully run then.
that is consistent with how we do it in podman.

And drop the vendor task as we do not do vendor anymore.

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
Also drop the vendor step, we don't need that anymore.

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
And update the CIRRUS_WORKING_DIR to use the proper repo path.

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
@Luap99 Luap99 changed the title cirrus: optimize skip/only_if cirrus: some fixes Aug 26, 2025
To speed up tests.

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks plausible otherwise — I didn’t review the test logs, though.

skip: "!changesInclude('storage/**', 'image/**')"
# The git-validation tool doesn't work well on branch or tag push,
# under Cirrus-CI, due to challenges obtaining the starting commit ID.
# Only do validation for PRs.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was dropping this extra condition intentional?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For now yes, I was to lazy to make custom conditions here because I though this job and the storage/common validation should all be merged together. Because well validating the commits here isn't a image specific thing so my next step is to consolidate the validate/lint jobs into one thus for now I think it is fine to leave it like that

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

*shrug* fine. I’m all for consolidating / improving the CI scripting, and it’s not very clear what this is warning about. I guess we’ll find out :) The way I read it, we should still be able to merge PRs on stable branches, so we won’t be scrambling to do a backport.

Copy link
Member

@lsm5 lsm5 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jankaluza
Copy link
Member

/LGTM

@jankaluza jankaluza merged commit 8d56bca into containers:main Aug 26, 2025
31 checks passed
@Luap99 Luap99 deleted the cirrus branch August 26, 2025 13:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants