Conversation
|
Please set the appropriate release note label. |
0f7efc0 to
fb1d15b
Compare
34cd0d8 to
dd33d76
Compare
|
test-net-next |
|
test-runtime |
pchaigno
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is awesome!
Mostly nits from my side. Would be nice to update the name of the workflow though.
|
|
||
| err := kubectl.WaitforPods(helpers.DefaultNamespace, "", helpers.HelperTimeout) | ||
| ExpectWithOffset(1, err).Should(BeNil(), "connectivity-check pods are not ready after timeout") | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately this wouldn't really work for multi-node clusters, we would be running several Cilium agent instances on one kernel which would most probably wreak havoc in bpf filesystem and break everything, as we don't do any namespacing afaik (I don't know if this would even be possible).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pchaigno I saw this awesome PR, and thinking about trying to multi node in kind. It's for my own understanding only. There is one related PR #11715, which makes the connectivity check simpler as well. As @nebril mentioned, might need to relax some condition/scope to make it working with multiple nodes in kind :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we would be running several Cilium agent instances on one kernel which would most probably wreak havoc
I don't think that's an issue. We even have a GSG for a multi-node Kind setup.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I followed the above guide to setup my dev environment. My original plan is to use chart testing with custom values coming from ci directory (with the same value mentioned in guide). However, understanding from the team that having extra ci folder might not be idea, so might need to wait for helm/chart-testing#171 to be resolved first. @nebril is very kind to spend time explaining and pointing me to helm/chart-testing#171 🎉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I totally missed this gsg guilde, thanks for this info!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nebril @pchaigno in that case, what do you think about this https://github.com/sayboras/cilium/pull/71/checks?check_run_id=720440156 ? FYI. I just copied details from this PR and GSG link
2ee75ba to
0565839
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't we set the pull policy value with helm?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not with the action we are using here :/
0565839 to
2a5a5c9
Compare
|
test-focus K8sConformance |
|
test-4.9 |
Signed-off-by: Maciej Kwiek <maciej@isovalent.com>
Make docker images Import them into kind cluster Install gingko Run ginkgo test Signed-off-by: Maciej Kwiek <maciej@isovalent.com>
2a5a5c9 to
67d4e1a
Compare
|
test-focus K8sConformance |
|
hit vagrant provisioning flake fixed by #11858, rerunning conformance tests |
|
test-focus K8sConformance |
1 similar comment
|
test-focus K8sConformance |
This extends the helm lint gh action by building the docker images and running simple ginkgo test against kind cluster.