-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.9k
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
github workflows: remove release tests #19358
Conversation
Do not get time to dig into the details. It shouldn't be a reason to remove trivy.
I think It's better to run trivy on each PR instead of periodically. It doesn't take too much time or resource. |
As this may be a longer conversation, I opened #19363. |
Needs rebase |
@serathius, I didn't rebase because I thought we should first discuss the controversial part of this pull request either here or in #19363. If there's no discussion by next week, I'll bring the topic to the next community meeting. |
This workflow has already been migrated to the prow infrastructure as a presubmit job. Signed-off-by: Ivan Valdes <ivan@vald.es>
3448c70
to
ed975c2
Compare
/cc @ahrtr, @serathius With an agreement on #19363. We can now remove the Trivy scan from this job. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted filessee 26 files with indirect coverage changes @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #19358 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 68.82% 68.74% -0.09%
==========================================
Files 421 421
Lines 35901 35901
==========================================
- Hits 24708 24679 -29
- Misses 9762 9788 +26
- Partials 1431 1434 +3 Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, ivanvc, serathius The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/cherry-pick release-3.6 |
@ivanvc: #19358 failed to apply on top of branch "release-3.6":
In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
This workflow has already been migrated to the prow infrastructure as a presubmit job. Cherry-picks PR etcd-io#19358/commit ed975c2. Signed-off-by: Ivan Valdes <ivan@vald.es>
This workflow has already been migrated to the prow infrastructure as a presubmit job, and it's stable.
The current GitHub workflow also has a second part, which uses Trivy to check for image vulnerabilities in the generated images. However, these results overlap (or duplicate) what we obtain with
govulncheck
, as our images are based on a distroless static Debian image. Therefore, it only checks the etcd binaries. For example, when we had the report of GO-2024-2527, it never failed.So, I think we can delete it. Or, maybe another approach would be to move it to a periodic job.
Please read https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-flow.