We are currently using the Jenkins GitHub PR builder plugin to perform the API calls at the end of the job. I don't think this plugin currently supports reporting multiple checks from one job.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:37 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > In theory, we could have one jenkins job that makes two calls to Github’s > status API—one for the pulpcore smash test result and one for the pulp_file > smash test. That said, I am fine with 2 jenkins jobs too. > > > David > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Would it be possible to have the required tests be Pulp core only, but >>> to have an expanded set of non-mandatory smash tests which includes >>> pulp_file? >>> >>> Which would mean, the pulp_file smash test results would be there as a >>> visual indicator, but wouldn't cause problems over the next few months >>> before the plugin API is fully stabilized. >>> >>> >>> >> Yes we can. We would need to set it up as two separate Jenkins jobs. I >> believe GitHub allows setting a subset of checks as gating. >> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> tl;dr: which set of pulp-smash tests should run against pulpcore PRs? >>>> pulpcore + pulp_file or just pulpcore? >>>> >>>> Jeremy and I are working to enable a new check for PRs against Pulp's >>>> 3.0-dev branch. This is going to be a jenkins job that installs pulpcore >>>> from the PR and then runs pulp-smash smoke tests against it. >>>> >>>> The smoke tests include both pulpcore and pulp_file tests. When testing >>>> PRs for pulp repository, should pulp_file also be installed thus allowing >>>> pulp-smash all the tests? The other option is to not install pulp_file and >>>> allow only the pulpcore tests to run. >>>> >>>> If both pulpcore and pulp_file tests are required to pass to merge a >>>> PR, then we can get into a situation where the plugin API is intentionally >>>> changing and the tests can't pass until the change is introduced to >>>> pulp_file also. In such situations we could require the pulpcore-plugin >>>> package to have it's version bumped, which would mark the build as passing. >>>> >>>> If only pulpcore tests are run we could get into a situation where the >>>> PR breaks the plugin API and we don't learn this until after the code is >>>> merged. >>>> >>>> Which set of tests should run for pulpcore PRs? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
