search

opensearch-project / ml-commons-dashboards

User interface for the ml-commons plugin which can be integrated with OpenSearch Dashboards and a health dashboard for machine learning models.
Apache License 2.0
6 stars 20 forks source link

Add new workflow to verify binary install #306

Closed derek-ho closed 3 months ago

derek-ho commented 4 months ago

Description

I have observed some issues within other plugins of issues being only caught at run time. This is because several things can go wrong during the build process, which may not be caught in a dev setup. This adds a workflow to verify that building and installing into OSD works on every PR.

Related issues: https://github.com/opensearch-project/security-dashboards-plugin/issues/1709 https://github.com/opensearch-project/security-analytics-dashboards-plugin/pull/875 https://github.com/opensearch-project/dashboards-observability/pull/309 https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch-Dashboards/issues/5952

Issues Resolved

List any issues this PR will resolve, e.g. Closes [...].

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

codecov[bot] commented 4 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 80.29%. Comparing base (ad42589) to head (13b6fbc).

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #306 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 80.29% 80.29% ======================================= Files 26 26 Lines 477 477 Branches 105 105 ======================================= Hits 383 383 Misses 67 67 Partials 27 27 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

derek-ho commented 4 months ago

Workflow is failing due to core issue

ruanyl commented 4 months ago

I'm curious if the errors mentioned in related issues were captured by integration tests?

derek-ho commented 4 months ago

Yes it should. The purpose of this workflow is to move the failures up in the development lifecycle. Instead of retroactively fixing issues hopefully this will keep the branches in good shape and keep folks aware of any build failures in core. Thus auto cuts/integration failures can be taken more seriously and be focused on actual test failures and not issues with the build process.