New packaging pipeline + Improve current PR based one - #5682
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5682 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.06% 84.94% -1.12%
==========================================
Files 60 60
Lines 18663 18663
==========================================
- Hits 16063 15854 -209
- Misses 2600 2809 +209 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
…prove dependency installation logic for dnf5
…OpenSUSE support in docker-script.sh
Guillaume Hetier (guhetier)
left a comment
Guillaume Hetier (guhetier)
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for all these improvements.
A general concern (not blocking for this PR, more a longer term improvement) is that we currently have:
- two package building logics (github / ADO official build)
- two package validation logic (one for the github package / one for the published package)
We should try to factor them, to share the packaging logic as much as possible and to have common validation steps that can consume the packages either from the github pipeline or from the repositories.
That would both be simpler and help catch issues early
| { config: "Release", os: "ubuntu-24.04", arch: "arm64", tls: "quictls", time64: "-Time64Distro" }, | ||
| { config: "Release", os: "ubuntu-24.04", arch: "x64", tls: "quictls", xdp: "-UseXdp", time64: "-Time64Distro" }, | ||
| ] | ||
| uses: ./.github/workflows/package-reuse-linux.yml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gaurav Singh (@gaurav2699) This pipeline ends up building and validating linux packages, but the scripts used in ADO for the official packages are different.
How much do you think we could unify the two?
Validating packages in Github is nice to shift the validation left, but not that useful if the package we validate here and the one published end up being different.
| jobs: | ||
| validate: | ||
| name: Validate | ||
| uses: ./.github/workflows/validate-linux-packages-reuse.yml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question: Why do you use a reusable workflow here, when this is the only place using it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking to separate it initially, I ended up with one pipeline.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok - it might be worth merging the two just to avoid future dev wondering about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think i'll do it with another PR next month.
de83cc3
into
microsoft:main
|
I think we skipped RHEL 10 for the validation. |
## Description Add new local container-based package validation script + on-demand container-based package validation CI + improve current PR-based validation. To test new pipeline you can fork: [liveans/msquic-package-validation](https://github.com/liveans/msquic-package-validation) and run it ## Testing CI + Local Runs ## Documentation No
4 participants
Description
Add new local container-based package validation script + on-demand container-based package validation CI + improve current PR-based validation.
To test new pipeline you can fork: liveans/msquic-package-validation and run it
Testing
CI + Local Runs
Documentation
No