-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
SRE-3534 ci: update to el9.7 #489
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Cancel-prev-build: false Priority: 2 Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
f98206b to
10e01b2
Compare
Priority: 2 Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
|
Validation status:
|
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
- add all possible cases for el9.7 and el9 related stages to skip logic - ignore CI_BUILD_PACKAGES_ONLY for regular builds as they are now used for RPM building Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
JohnMalmberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While this will work, I have some recommendations for helping to future proof this.
| assert(call('el8', 'master') == '8.8') | ||
| assert(call('el9', 'master') == '9.4') | ||
| assert(call('el9', 'master') == '9.7') | ||
| assert(call('el9', '2.6') == '9.4') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should get this bumped to 9.7 also. We can not support older el-9 in hardware CI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can't, as we can not build 2.6 on 9.7
But we do not need as we do not test 2.6 against el9 at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do test release/2.6 against EL9. In https://jenkins.daos.hpc.amslabs.hpecorp.net/job/daos-stack/job/daos/job/release%252F2.6/226/pipeline-overview/ we build DAOS RPMs against EL9. Also, the daily-2.6-testing and weekly-2.6.-testing branches run a Functional VM stage on EL9. In https://jenkins.daos.hpc.amslabs.hpecorp.net/job/daos-stack/job/daos/job/daily-2.6-testing/179/ it ran on 9.7.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, but the problem is with RPM build which does not work on 9.7 (but works on 9.4).
Upgrade VM tests to use EL9.7 is configured directly in the restore_vm_partition.sh script where 9.7 is used as default.
| case 'el9': | ||
| provision_script += 'EL_8' | ||
| break | ||
| case 'el9': |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Future enhancement is to just be "EL", as EL-[8-10] do not appear to have much differences, so that this can simplify the number of scripts.
| prReposContains('ubuntu20', jobName()) || | ||
| skip_stage_pragma('build-ubuntu20-rpm') | ||
| case 'Build on CentOS 8': | ||
| case 'Build on EL 8': |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Apparently these removals are not affecting Release 2.6?
Release 2.6 should really have been using "EL 8" and not "CentOS 8"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is redundant code.
vars/skipStage.groovy
Outdated
| !run_default_skipped_stage('test-el-8.8-rpms')) || | ||
| (rpmTestVersion() != '') || | ||
| stageAlreadyPassed() | ||
| case 'Test RPMs on EL 9.7': |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should handle 'Test RPMs on EL 9" also.
I wonder if the string constant could be replaced with a function that uses a regex so that we don't need to specify a specific point release and edit this file every 6 months.
vars/skipStage.groovy
Outdated
| skip_stage_pragma('build-el9-rpm') || | ||
| skip_stage_pragma('test') || | ||
| skip_stage_pragma('test-rpms') || | ||
| skip_stage_pragma('test-el-9.7-rpms') || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have less than 6 months before el-9.7 is out of support.
If we are have to support checking specific point release, we need to have support for ".0 through .10" for EL based OSes. And in the past RHEL has issued ".11" releases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is why I want to completely exclude versions from the stage names.
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
New depth == 100 Doc-only: true Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
Doc-only: true Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
This reverts commit 1e655f8. Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
+ upgrade default el from el7 to el9 Priority: 2 Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Gromadzki <tomasz.gromadzki@hpe.com>
Update the default EL version for the DAOS master validation to 9.7
It is a base for other el9.7 upgrade related changes introduced by daos-stack/daos#17376
This PR fix an issue with the
CI_BUILD_PACKAGES_ONLYthat should be now ignored in case of regular builds (no separate builds for RPM).