search

juju-solutions / layer-cwr

Layer for building the Juju Jenkins CI env
Other
2 stars 5 forks source link

rename build-* to cwr-* #102

Closed kwmonroe closed 7 years ago

kwmonroe commented 7 years ago

Our action naming has rubbed me wrong for a while. While it's true that build-on-foo does indeed build a charm, the larger intention is to run cwr on a charm when foo happens. To that end, I propose the following renames before we get so widespread that a rename becomes impractical:

In addition to these changes, I've renamed lp-id action params to namespace, because that matches the ecosystem nomenclature better imo.

This PR also helps address https://github.com/juju-solutions/bundle-cwr-ci/issues/12, where @mbruzek requested a prefix on cwr jobs to help distinguish them from other jobs on the jenkins host. The spirit of his issue also includes renaming jobs like RegisterController and RunCWR, so this doesn't totally resolve his issue. Still, grouping cwr-related jobs seems smart, so I've done that with the generated job names in this PR.

Make no mistake, this is a disruptive change that affects anyone that has become accustomed to our action names. I think it's best we get it right and get it consistent sooner rather than later. I'm open to suggestions if anyone disagrees with this proposal.

This is currently available in cwr-58 on jdin:8080, model cwr-58. Tests with charm and bundle actions look clean:

http://juju.does-it.net:8080/

johnsca commented 7 years ago

I am +1 on these changes.

pengale commented 7 years ago

I am also +1 on the changes (code also looks good, based on readthrough).

ktsakalozos commented 7 years ago

I would prefer something other than cwr because of two reasons:

  1. CWR is a tool we are using. It might get deprecated next year, who knows... then again we named the charm cwr :)
  2. CWR are initials that might not mean a lot to the user.

However, it seems I am a minority. So, lets merge this :)

mbruzek commented 7 years ago

https://github.com/juju-solutions/bundle-cwr-ci/issues/12 only asked for the Jenkins job names to be prefixed with something so an alphanumeric listing on Jenkins would group the jobs together instead of intermingled with other jobs that might already be on the system. @kwmonroe You don't need to change the action names to reflect that if that would cause users confusion.

I agree with @ktsakalozos that "cwr" may not be the best acronym to use in case someone wants to rename the tool in the future. Keeping the action names as they were would be fine and only changing the job name would be what I recommend.

Here is an image of the CWR-CI jobs mixed in the Kubernetes Jenkins CI system. ![Uploading Screenshot from 2017-02-28 12-46-56.png…]()

![Uploading Screenshot from 2017-02-28 12-46-56.png…]()

kwmonroe commented 7 years ago

@ktsakalozos @mbruzek: Thanks for the feedback. I feel pretty good about sticking with cwr as a prefix because all of these actions eventually call out to run_cwr_in_container.

If we support foo as a test mechanism next year, we can make foo-* actions that call out to run_foo_in_container.

Also consider the possibility of cwr flavors. Perhaps in the future we have cwr-lite that only runs a subset of the tests. Maybe your workflow then becomes "run cwr-lite on commit; run the full cwr on release".

Finally, I'm not too concerned with the tool being renamed -- as @ktsakalozos pointed out, we already named the charm cwr, so if we change names, there will be a new charm with the potential for new action names at that time.