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

Bug 1897361: ctrcfg_test: Wait for our prior target config #2229

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 19, 2020

Conversation

rphillips
Copy link
Contributor

Waiting for the previous MC isn't right here; we're deleting
a config and so what we want to wait for is the previous pool
target.

Drop the racy sleep().

- What I did

- How to verify it

- Description for the changelog

Waiting for the previous MC isn't right here; we're deleting
a config and so what we want to wait for is the previous pool
target.

Drop the racy `sleep()`.
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Nov 13, 2020
@rphillips rphillips closed this Nov 13, 2020
@rphillips rphillips changed the title WIP: ctrcfg_test: Wait for our prior target config [single commit] WIP: ctrcfg_test: Wait for our prior target config Nov 13, 2020
@kikisdeliveryservice kikisdeliveryservice changed the title WIP: ctrcfg_test: Wait for our prior target config Bug 1897361: ctrcfg_test: Wait for our prior target config Nov 13, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Nov 13, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@rphillips: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1897361, which is valid. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.7.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.7.0)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

Bug 1897361: ctrcfg_test: Wait for our prior target config

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Nov 13, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@kikisdeliveryservice kikisdeliveryservice left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

=== RUN   TestContainerRuntimeConfigLogLevel
--- PASS: TestContainerRuntimeConfigLogLevel (553.14s)
    

This has fixed it, but still not a great idea of why it happened in the first place, but this PR also makes the ctrcfg test more inline with the mcd tests.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 13, 2020
@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

/skip

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

kikisdeliveryservice commented Nov 14, 2020

well looks like gcp-op isn't the only problem with ci today... sigh

all required tests are failing on all prs.

@rphillips
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

3 similar comments
@LorbusChris
Copy link
Member

/retest

@LorbusChris
Copy link
Member

/retest

@sinnykumari
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

@LorbusChris
Copy link
Member

TestDontDeleteRPMFiles keeps on timing out :(
/retest

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

TestDontDeleteRPMFiles keeps on timing out :(

I'm pretty sure that's the overall test timeout, not that specific test. See
openshift/cluster-dns-operator#213
for a hopeful fix for reboot speed in 4.7/master.

@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

/skip

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

2 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@yuqi-zhang
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

AWS should be better

@rphillips
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test e2e-gcp-op

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@sinnykumari
Copy link
Contributor

/test e2e-gcp-op

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

3 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

openshift/cluster-dns-operator#213 (comment) merged (thanks to @cgwalters !), but it'll probably take another run or two before it's in... 👍

almost there!

@rphillips
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test e2e-gcp-op

@rphillips
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cherry-pick release-4.6

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@rphillips: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-4.6 in a new PR and assign it to you.

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.6

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

I'm seeing:

2020/11/18 21:55:51 Pod e2e-gcp-op-test succeeded after 1h0m30s EEEEEEEP!!!!! 😃

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

kikisdeliveryservice commented Nov 18, 2020

It's.. running the tests... AGAIN 😭

It did officially pass gcp-op tho!! https://prow.ci.openshift.org/pr-history/?org=openshift&repo=machine-config-operator&pr=2229

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

e2e-gcp-op is passing again so waiting for this to officially merge (https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/openshift_machine-config-operator/2229/pull-ci-openshift-machine-config-operator-master-e2e-gcp-op/1329185639261802496):

2020/11/19 00:07:24 Container test in pod e2e-gcp-op-test completed successfully
2020/11/19 00:07:24 Pod e2e-gcp-op-test succeeded after 1h3m7s
2020/11/19 00:07:24 Executing pod "e2e-gcp-op-gather-must-gather"
2020/11/19 00:07:42 Container cp-secret-wrapper in pod e2e-gcp-op-gather-must-gather completed successfully

@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-merge-robot commented Nov 19, 2020

@rphillips: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/okd-e2e-aws b818d76 link /test okd-e2e-aws
ci/prow/e2e-ovn-step-registry b818d76 link /test e2e-ovn-step-registry

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

kikisdeliveryservice commented Nov 19, 2020

gcp-op passed(!!!) aws-serial did pass once but now failed so let's try again.

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

On second thought this PR is only updating our test in gcp-op (tests/e2e/...) and has passed 2x now so the fix works. I'm not going to block on aws-serial as it will never be affected by this pr.

/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-serial

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@kikisdeliveryservice: Overrode contexts on behalf of kikisdeliveryservice: ci/prow/e2e-aws-serial

In response to this:

On second thought this PR is only updating our test in gcp-op (tests/e2e/...) and has passed 2x now so the fix works. I'm not going to block on aws-serial as it will never be affected by this pr.

/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-serial

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 806f77e into openshift:master Nov 19, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@rphillips: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 1897361 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1897361: ctrcfg_test: Wait for our prior target config

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@rphillips: new pull request created: #2239

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.6

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. team-mco
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet