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

Jenkins/RFS bug fixes for working pipeline #830

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 18, 2024

Conversation

lewijacn
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

Required fixes to get RFS flow working as well as fix minor Jenkins issues

image

Issues Resolved

[List any issues this PR will resolve]

Is this a backport? If so, please add backport PR # and/or commits #

Testing

[Please provide details of testing done: unit testing, integration testing and manual testing]

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing
    • All tests pass, including unit test, integration test and doctest
  • New functionality has been documented
  • Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

Signed-off-by: Tanner Lewis <lewijacn@amazon.com>
…ration

Signed-off-by: Tanner Lewis <lewijacn@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Tanner Lewis <lewijacn@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Tanner Lewis <lewijacn@amazon.com>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.18%. Comparing base (46ac286) to head (29bb9c9).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #830   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.18%   88.18%           
=======================================
  Files          56       56           
  Lines        3478     3478           
=======================================
  Hits         3067     3067           
  Misses        411      411           
Flag Coverage Δ
python-test 88.18% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Signed-off-by: Tanner Lewis <lewijacn@amazon.com>
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ public static class Args {
public String s3Region;

@ParametersDelegate
public ConnectionDetails.TargetArgs targetArgs;
public ConnectionDetails.TargetArgs targetArgs = new ConnectionDetails.TargetArgs();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@chelma, is this part of the change you're doing?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I just pushed out a PR that does the same thing.

@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ public static class Args {
public String s3Region;

@ParametersDelegate
public ConnectionDetails.TargetArgs targetArgs;
public ConnectionDetails.TargetArgs targetArgs = new ConnectionDetails.TargetArgs();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I just pushed out a PR that does the same thing.

Comment on lines +59 to +66
snapshot_result: CommandResult = snapshot.create(wait=True)
assert snapshot_result.success
metadata_result: CommandResult = metadata.migrate()
assert metadata_result.success
backfill_start_result: CommandResult = backfill.start()
assert backfill_start_result.success
backfill_scale_result: CommandResult = backfill.scale(units=10)
assert backfill_scale_result.success
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you!

I'm curious how you tested this, though. Can you provide some details on that?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I ran the Jenkins pipeline on this branch

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To clarify - @lewijacn confirmed that the test failed at the assertions when the underlying RFS operation failed.

@lewijacn lewijacn merged commit 8f78856 into opensearch-project:main Jul 18, 2024
14 checks passed
@lewijacn lewijacn deleted the rfs-test-fixes branch October 10, 2024 17:48
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.

3 participants