search

confidential-containers / cloud-api-adaptor

Ability to create Kata pods using cloud provider APIs aka the peer-pods approach
Apache License 2.0
48 stars 88 forks source link

workflow: Switch libvirt e2e test to gh-runnner #2134

Closed stevenhorsman closed 3 weeks ago

stevenhorsman commented 3 weeks ago

Now the pre-work changes have gone in in #2130, we should be able to switch over to use the gh-hosted runner for libvirt e2e tests, so save Azure credits and make it easier to do testing on local forks.

Drive by fixes to add KBS debug info & add cluster clean-up support for "bare-metal" runners.

Tested in https://github.com/stevenhorsman/cloud-api-adaptor/actions/runs/11558678218/job/32171610739

mkulke commented 3 weeks ago

do we plan to drop the pull-request-target/authorize settings for those e2e tests then, so that libvirt e2e tests can run in the context of a fork?

stevenhorsman commented 3 weeks ago

do we plan to drop the pull-request-target/authorize settings for those e2e tests then, so that libvirt e2e tests can run in the context of a fork?

So I'm working on getting the s390x self-hosted runner working for the libvirt tests as well, which would need the pull-request-target trigger. What are you looking for in the run from a fork? I am running it from my fork for testing, either running from the daily-libvirt e2e workflow, or just this workflow with a workflow_dispatch: trigger option. If you think the standalone run would be useful then I'm happy to add that into this PR?

mkulke commented 3 weeks ago

do we plan to drop the pull-request-target/authorize settings for those e2e tests then, so that libvirt e2e tests can run in the context of a fork?

So I'm working on getting the s390x self-hosted runner working for the libvirt tests as well, which would need the pull-request-target trigger. What are you looking for in the run from a fork? I am running it from my fork for testing, either running from the daily-libvirt e2e workflow, or just this workflow with a workflow_dispatch: trigger option. If you think the standalone run would be useful then I'm happy to add that into this PR?

ah, ok. yes, in this case we need to keep the pull-request-target setting in place

stevenhorsman commented 3 weeks ago

ah, ok. yes, in this case we need to keep the pull-request-target setting in place

I've put an item in tomorrow's meeting to discuss the new proposed flow and maybe we can find some issues/improvements to make with it and have a plan for things like this.