Skip to content

Bphilip/refactor version entangle check add release number#12910

Merged
christopherco merged 5 commits into3.0-devfrom
bphilip/refactor-version-entangle-check-add-minor-2
Mar 19, 2025
Merged

Bphilip/refactor version entangle check add release number#12910
christopherco merged 5 commits into3.0-devfrom
bphilip/refactor-version-entangle-check-add-minor-2

Conversation

@binujp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@binujp binujp commented Mar 12, 2025

Merge Checklist

All boxes should be checked before merging the PR (just tick any boxes which don't apply to this PR)

  • The toolchain has been rebuilt successfully (or no changes were made to it)
  • The toolchain/worker package manifests are up-to-date
  • Any updated packages successfully build (or no packages were changed)
  • Packages depending on static components modified in this PR (Golang, *-static subpackages, etc.) have had their Release tag incremented.
  • Package tests (%check section) have been verified with RUN_CHECK=y for existing SPEC files, or added to new SPEC files
  • All package sources are available
  • cgmanifest files are up-to-date and sorted (./cgmanifest.json, ./toolkit/scripts/toolchain/cgmanifest.json, .github/workflows/cgmanifest.json)
  • LICENSE-MAP files are up-to-date (./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/data/licenses.json, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSES-MAP.md, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSE-EXCEPTIONS.PHOTON)
  • All source files have up-to-date hashes in the *.signatures.json files
  • sudo make go-tidy-all and sudo make go-test-coverage pass
  • Documentation has been updated to match any changes to the build system
  • Ready to merge

Summary

What does the PR accomplish, why was it needed?

MOFED and associated kernel modules did not include kernel minor version in the entangle check. check_entangle script did not provide enough details when it failed.

Added a unit test to make sure the script was indeed doing everything as expected. There was some refactoring done to the script to make the workflow more compact.

Change Log
  • Change
  • Change
  • Change
Does this affect the toolchain?

YES/NO

NO

Test Methodology
  • Pipeline build id: xxxx

@binujp binujp requested a review from a team as a code owner March 12, 2025 05:20
@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service Bot added Packaging Tools 3.0-dev PRs Destined for AzureLinux 3.0 labels Mar 12, 2025
PawelWMS
PawelWMS previously approved these changes Mar 12, 2025
rlmenge
rlmenge previously approved these changes Mar 12, 2025
@binujp binujp self-assigned this Mar 12, 2025
@binujp binujp requested review from jslobodzian and reubeno March 12, 2025 17:10
@christopherco
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@binujp kindly requesting to fix up the PR description to remove unnecessary confusion

@binujp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

binujp commented Mar 13, 2025

@binujp kindly requesting to fix up the PR description to remove unnecessary confusion

This had not gone through shiproom. I thought I was maintaining momentum from when mofed oot packages were integrated into core. I will go through due process.

@binujp binujp changed the base branch from 3.0-dev to 3.0 March 18, 2025 17:36
@binujp binujp requested a review from a team as a code owner March 18, 2025 17:36
@binujp binujp changed the base branch from 3.0 to 3.0-dev March 18, 2025 17:36
@binujp binujp dismissed stale reviews from rlmenge and PawelWMS March 18, 2025 17:36

The base branch was changed.

@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service Bot added the specs-extended PR to fix SPECS-EXTENDED label Mar 18, 2025
@christopherco christopherco merged commit 16a75f2 into 3.0-dev Mar 19, 2025
14 checks passed
@christopherco christopherco deleted the bphilip/refactor-version-entangle-check-add-minor-2 branch March 19, 2025 01:41
SumitJenaHCL pushed a commit to SumitJenaHCL/azurelinux that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2025
…#12910)

MOFED and associated kernel modules did not include kernel minor version in the entangle check. check_entangle script did not provide enough details when it failed.

Added a unit test to make sure the script was indeed doing everything as expected. There was some refactoring done to the script to make the workflow more compact.

Co-authored-by: Binu Jose Philip <bphilip@microsoft.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

3.0-dev PRs Destined for AzureLinux 3.0 Packaging specs-extended PR to fix SPECS-EXTENDED Tools

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants