Workflow [PR], commit [d912547]

Summary: ✅

Add one more fix but how could I know, if it fix everything or not... :(

Partially works, but the new tests aren't added to the test suit https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/actions/runs/18774789304/job/53580623535#step:5:583

Now fully works!:

https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/actions/runs/18780697314/job/53599814170?pr=88882#step:5:584

@alexey-milovidov, @Felixoid, sure, no rush. And I apologize for tons of errors and fixed in my PR. If there is some documentation how to run praktika jobs locally, I would rather test my code first.

@alexey-milovidov, @Felixoid, sure, no rush. And I apologize for tons of errors and fixed in my PR. If there is some documentation how to run praktika jobs locally, I would rather test my code first.

I'll create a PR to make it locally runnable

Thanks a lot. Let's go, it's so long-awaited tests. Now, we'll add more and more tests to cover our docker images' functions.

This broke the CI: https://s3.amazonaws.com/clickhouse-test-reports/json.html?PR=85663&sha=3bc3ae87df2866115d2790c302c8b4ab32788f84&name_0=PR&name_1=Docker%20server%20image&name_1=Docker%20server%20image

Let's revert and reintroduce once it's fixed

@Felixoid, oh no: looks like docker-build.sh doesn't working in the CI. Either need to rewrite it, or (/and) get rid of docker-library at all.

I cannot come up with a good fix for running this job locally. As a temporary solution, I can suggest this:

mkdir -p ./ci/tmp
wget https://clickhouse-builds.s3.amazonaws.com/REFs/master/dcdf7c72e818f47f77949c4deca3ce0b6cbfbe10/build_arm_release/artifact_report_build_arm_release.json -P ./ci/tmp
wget https://clickhouse-builds.s3.amazonaws.com/REFs/master/dcdf7c72e818f47f77949c4deca3ce0b6cbfbe10/build_amd_release/artifact_report_build_amd_release.json -P ./ci/tmp
python -m ci.praktika run 'Docker server image'

Now we run this library test only in MasterCI, see here

I'm not sure about the motivation for if push there. Perhaps we can remove the if, so that this code gets tested in PRs as well. cc @Felixoid

@Felixoid, @maxknv, FYI, to fix the cross-platform docker-library image overrides, that caused the problem, I would try to push build command override initiative to docker-library. If the maintainers resist against it, I could try to implement our own docker-image testing system instead. What do you think?

Looks like docker-library team is not so enthusiastic about supporting buildx (even on my offer to implement it myself). Does it make any sense to implement our own harness around docker images testing? Here we could use python instead of bash, which makes the stuff slightly more transparent.

Sorry, I was on vacation for a few days, and I'm now getting through the backlog.

We can avoid rebuilding another image here and mount a file into a container. What was the original reason to use this method?

I'm not sure about the motivation for if push there. Perhaps we can remove the if, so that this code gets tested in PRs as well. cc @Felixoid

Answering this, it's the other way. if not push, there's a comment why See --output=type=docker. We run this test only in PR workflows.

Without this type=docker, there aren't any images in docker locally, so we have nothing to test.

https://github.com/GSokol/ClickHouse/blob/d9125475683827d9ed9b234b7ec74d0928e723a9/ci/jobs/docker_server.py#L217