-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
Create runtime staging clone to manually kick off full test runs #61443
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 9 commits
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a519323
Create runtime staging clone to manually kick off full test runs
steveisok 725c27f
Remove separate pipeline
6195dd4
Tweak variables to support full matrix on manual runs
4f19def
Update eng/pipelines/common/variables.yml
steveisok d5c6207
Add a separate isSmokeTestBuild variable and trickle it into runtime-…
3ebaa8c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/stpfiste/manual-runtime-stagin…
bd8e5aa
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into stpfiste/manual-run…
3eaff34
Flip conditions
ec7f252
Naming feedback
d19ca34
Flipped name of manual pipeline
44e7023
Prevent anything being scheduled on the manual pipelines
b497b31
Use template for runtime-staging so we can extract out the schedule a…
akoeplinger 42caf7c
Exclude DllImportantGenerator Unit tests from mobile
1390cc8
Make sure a few more configurations run manually
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
I'd call the variable
isReducedFullMatrixsince we're essentially running a bit less than the normal fullmatrix run, I don't think we need to tie this into PR vs. rolling vs. manual.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
alternatively, I wonder if we should instead just set
isFullMatrixfor the manual pipeline and only update the few places where we really really don't want to run on PRs even in the manual pipeline.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.
For runtime-staging that might be ok, but I think it would be harder to work around in runtime. That's why I thought Santi's suggestion for another variable was a good one.
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.
I thought Ankit's suggestion was easier to work with when modifying the yml. Honestly, I don't care what we name it.
@radical @safern, thoughts?
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.
When I quickly looked it didn't seem used in a lot of relevant places but ok :)
That actually raises another question, or maybe I'm misunderstanding the conditions: we're running all of the legs in the manual pipeline, even those that already run as part of the normal pipeline right? that seems suboptimal and a waste of resources.
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.
My biggest concern with using isFullMatrix is for runtime.yml because that runs as a rolling build which has a LOOT of tests and also a lot of those would already be covered by the default run we get on PRs, so that's why I suggested a new variable.
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.
@akoeplinger @radical @safern Are the
isNotManualAndIsPRandisManualOrIsNotPRvariables ok or do we want a different name? My vote is to go with them, but I'd like your opinions before moving forward.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.
I would prefer sticking with them, but would be fine with whatever @safern, and @akoeplinger agree upon.
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.
I'm fine with sticking with them too.
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.
Fine with sticking with those names as well.