Skip to content

Remove cluster group and subscription overrides for stress test release#2416

Merged
benbp merged 3 commits intoAzure:mainfrom
benbp:benbp/stress-release-params
Jan 6, 2022
Merged

Remove cluster group and subscription overrides for stress test release#2416
benbp merged 3 commits intoAzure:mainfrom
benbp:benbp/stress-release-params

Conversation

@benbp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@benbp benbp commented Dec 9, 2021

The Azure Pipelines UI marks parameters that default to an empty string as "Required" which defeats the whole purpose of
having empty defaults. The overrides are only there as an option for people to use the pipeline for custom dev
environments. Since I think this scenario is pretty rare, I'm just going to remove support for it (you can still
deploy to custom dev environments via the same underlying scripts). Instead, this change simplifies the parameters
to have an environment drop-down that shows you all options to pick from.

image

@benbp benbp requested a review from a team as a code owner December 9, 2021 20:22
@benbp benbp added Central-EngSys This issue is owned by the Engineering System team. Stress This issue is related to stress testing, part of our reliability pillar. labels Dec 9, 2021
@benbp benbp self-assigned this Dec 9, 2021
@check-enforcer-staging
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer.

What is Check Enforcer?

Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass.

Why am I getting this message?

You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged.

What should I do now?

If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows:
/check-enforcer evaluate
Typically evaulation only takes a few seconds. If you know that your pull request is not covered by a pipeline and this is expected you can override Check Enforcer using the following command:
/check-enforcer override
Note that using the override command triggers alerts so that follow-up investigations can occur (PRs still need to be approved as normal).

@benbp benbp force-pushed the benbp/stress-release-params branch from e5f7679 to 8c9dc77 Compare December 9, 2021 20:36
@benbp benbp requested a review from ckairen December 9, 2021 20:36
@benbp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

benbp commented Dec 9, 2021

/check-enforcer override

@azure-sdk
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

The following pipelines have been queued for testing:
java - template
java - template - tests
js - template
net - template
net - template - tests
python - template
python - template - tests
You can sign off on the approval gate to test the release stage of each pipeline.
See eng/common workflow

@benbp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

benbp commented Dec 9, 2021

/check-enforcer reset

@benbp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

benbp commented Dec 9, 2021

/check-enforcer evaluate

@@ -6,12 +6,9 @@ parameters:
- name: Environment
type: string
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The docs are kind of confusing, I think. This IS an enum, but you don't declare it by specifying enum you declare it by specifying an enum data type which in this case is string, and the values are the enum variants.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/yaml-schema?view=azure-devops&tabs=schema%2Cparameter-schema#parameters

${{ if eq(parameters.Environment, 'prod') }}:
azureSubscription: Azure SDK Test Resources
${{ if eq(parameters.Environment, 'test') }}:
azureSubscription: Azure SDK Developer Playground
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@weshaggard weshaggard Dec 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should test be playground? Should it be a test sub or should we change this to playground env? Maybe this should be called playground and the other one should be called test.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think test implies that is a resource used for testing, whereas prod implies a resource used for workloads that aren't touched directly and have more stability. Azure SDK Test Resources has the word "test" but we treat it as a "production" resource for testing workloads. So I'd be more inclined to keep the subscriptions the same, but call the environments prod and playground as that's probably clearer to developers using the scripts. @richardpark-msft thoughts?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I definitely like renaming "test" to "playground" but I'm still not sure I follow the name "prod", which generally implies to me production vs staging. However I don't care much as long as docs call out what it means... where are the docs? :)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For test -> playground, I'd like to do this in a separate phase since we'll want to rotate the cluster as well and spin people's workloads down from the current one. So I'd prefer to merge this as is and then track the rename via #2493.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good.

@benbp benbp requested a review from weshaggard January 4, 2022 03:16
@benbp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

benbp commented Jan 5, 2022

@weshaggard bump

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@weshaggard weshaggard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left some feedback on the naming but otherwise seems fine.

@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Jan 6, 2022

Hello @azure-sdk!

Because this pull request has the auto-merge label, I will be glad to assist with helping to merge this pull request once all check-in policies pass.

p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (@msftbot) and give me an instruction to get started! Learn more here.

@benbp benbp merged commit 2561bfa into Azure:main Jan 6, 2022
@benbp benbp deleted the benbp/stress-release-params branch January 6, 2022 22:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Central-EngSys This issue is owned by the Engineering System team. Stress This issue is related to stress testing, part of our reliability pillar.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants