Closed kwmonroe closed 7 years ago
I am +1 on these changes.
I am also +1 on the changes (code also looks good, based on readthrough).
I would prefer something other than cwr because of two reasons:
However, it seems I am a minority. So, lets merge this :)
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…]()
@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.
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:build-on-commit
->cwr-charm-commit
build-on-release
->cwr-charm-release
build-bundle
->cwr-bundle
In addition to these changes, I've renamed
lp-id
action params tonamespace
, 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
andRunCWR
, so this doesn't totally resolve his issue. Still, groupingcwr
-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
, modelcwr-58
. Tests with charm and bundle actions look clean:http://juju.does-it.net:8080/