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.

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

test: fix CI failure for periodic functional tests #10817

Conversation

tmvfb
Copy link
Contributor

@tmvfb tmvfb commented May 10, 2024

Description of your changes:
GitHub CI periodic functional tests proposed in #10751 currently fail due to insufficient permissions:
image
image
This PR modifies test file to be compatible with GitHub actions.

Checklist:

Copy link

Hi @tmvfb. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Signed-off-by: Igor Kvachenok <igor.kvachenok@prokube.ai>
@tmvfb tmvfb force-pushed the fix/gh-actions-periodic-tests-error branch from 99d4bb9 to 5e68845 Compare May 10, 2024 12:27
@hbelmiro
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

Copy link

@tmvfb: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
kubeflow-pipeline-e2e-test 5e68845 link false /test kubeflow-pipeline-e2e-test

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Copy link
Contributor

@hbelmiro hbelmiro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

@DharmitD DharmitD left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

cc: @chensun

@DharmitD
Copy link
Contributor

@chensun could you please review and approve? Thanks.

Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: chensun

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot merged commit c18ec0b into kubeflow:master May 21, 2024
2 of 3 checks passed
@DharmitD
Copy link
Contributor

DharmitD commented May 22, 2024

@tmvfb this still seems to be failing: https://github.com/kubeflow/pipelines/actions/runs/9197318968
I tried to fix this on my fork but haven't had success so far: https://github.com/DharmitD/data-science-pipelines-argo/actions/runs/9197236926
Could you look into it and fix this perms issue? Please make sure to test the workflow on your fork first and then propose a PR with the changes, thanks.

@tmvfb
Copy link
Contributor Author

tmvfb commented May 22, 2024

@tmvfb this still seems to be failing: https://github.com/kubeflow/pipelines/actions/runs/9197318968
I tried to fix this on my fork but haven't had success so far: https://github.com/DharmitD/data-science-pipelines-argo/actions/runs/9197236926
Could you look into it and fix this perms issue? Please make sure to test the workflow on your fork first and then propose a PR with the changes, thanks.

Yep, you are right, I already started looking into it, think I solved this particular issue here #10837. Other problems are still very probable, but unfortunately I don't have a functional gcloud cluster to test on my fork/locally, so it seems it's going to be one step at a time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants