Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

breaking(integration_test_charm.yaml): Run juju 3.6 tests on all GitHub Actions events #252

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 5, 2024
Merged

breaking(integration_test_charm.yaml): Run juju 3.6 tests on all GitHub Actions events #252

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 0 additions & 3 deletions .github/workflows/integration_test_charm.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -113,9 +113,6 @@ jobs:
# (In the UI, when this workflow is called with a matrix, GitHub will separate each matrix
# combination and preserve job ordering within a matrix combination.)
name: ${{ inputs.juju-agent-version || inputs.juju-snap-channel }} | ${{ inputs.architecture }} | Collect integration test groups
# Only run juju 3.6 tests on `schedule`
# Temporary while juju 3.6 is unstable (to avoid blocking PRs but collect data on nightly CI)
if: ${{ !startsWith(inputs.juju-snap-channel, '3.6/') || github.event_name == 'schedule'}}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i think we still want to run juju 3.6/stable tests on a nightly basis for another week before running them on all PRs

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. IMHO, we should also stop testing Juju 3.4/3.5 and test only Juju 2.9 LTS + 3.6 LTS.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@shayancanonical we have already run Juju 3.6 at night for a week and I didn't notice (new, 3.6 specific) issues there.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

while this may be true for mysql tests, postgres might face some heat with regards to 3.6 tests as there are consistent failures in schedule CI tests (might result in a block of PRs until these tests are stabilized). @taurus-forever approving, but please provide input if you still think that this change should go in

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This. All seems well, but let's wait

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Show failing 3.6 PostgreSQL tests to @marceloneppel .
Juju 3.6 LTS is officially released/ shipped, if we have issues with charm there - we need a fix asap.
It it is a standard CI instability noise => backlog ticket to process normally.

We should test Juju 2.9 LTS and Juju 3.6 LTS. Other Juju versions can be removed from testing.

runs-on: ubuntu-latest
timeout-minutes: 5
steps:
Expand Down
Loading