search

PingCAP-QE / ci

Continue intergration tests
Apache License 2.0
19 stars 97 forks source link

Revert "refactor(jenkins/pipelines,pipelines): use the new dockerfile url location" #2962

Closed wuhuizuo closed 1 month ago

wuhuizuo commented 1 month ago

Reverts PingCAP-QE/ci#2960

ti-chi-bot[bot] commented 1 month ago

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from wuhuizuo, ensuring that each of them provides their approval before proceeding. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - **[jenkins/OWNERS](https://github.com/PingCAP-QE/ci/blob/main/jenkins/OWNERS)** - **[pipelines/OWNERS](https://github.com/PingCAP-QE/ci/blob/main/pipelines/OWNERS)** Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment
ti-chi-bot[bot] commented 1 month ago

I have already done a preliminary review for you, and I hope to help you do a better job.

This pull request aims to revert a previous commit that refactored the Dockerfile URL locations for various products. The diff shows changes in several Groovy files that involve the use of --build-arg BASE_IMG=${params.BASE_IMG} instead of the previous additionalArgs += " --build-arg BASE_IMG=${params.BASE_IMG}".

There is no apparent issue with this pull request, as it is just a revert. However, it is unclear why the previous refactor was found to be problematic and requires a revert. It would be helpful to include more information about why the previous changes were reverted.

If the previous refactor was problematic, it may be helpful to provide more information about the original issue and how it was resolved. It is also important to ensure that the current changes will not cause any issues with the CI/CD pipeline.

If the previous changes were not problematic, it may be worth discussing why the revert is necessary and if there are any alternative solutions that can be implemented.

Overall, as a reviewer, I would suggest requesting more information about the reasons behind the revert and ensuring that the changes will not cause any issues with the pipeline.