Closed TejasMorbagal closed 1 year ago
The script itself looks good, but what about that update-version part? Shouldn't that also be executed when a docker image is built?
My thoughts were that the ArgoCD image updater automatically updates the .argo files which is then used by deployment to fetch the new docker image. We no longer use docker image tags or hash directly. Do you agree on this?
The script itself looks good, but what about that update-version part? Shouldn't that also be executed when a docker image is built?
My thoughts were that the ArgoCD image updater automatically updates the .argo files which is then used by deployment to fetch the new docker image. We no longer use docker image tags or hash directly. Do you agree on this?
If we don't need this, it's fine. But shouldn't the update section be removed from the other workflow then, too?
The script itself looks good, but what about that update-version part? Shouldn't that also be executed when a docker image is built?
My thoughts were that the ArgoCD image updater automatically updates the .argo files which is then used by deployment to fetch the new docker image. We no longer use docker image tags or hash directly. Do you agree on this?
If we don't need this, it's fine. But shouldn't the update section be removed from the other workflow then, too?
Yes, it should be removed. Let's do it after Alicja is back with a different PR.
The script itself looks good, but what about that update-version part? Shouldn't that also be executed when a docker image is built?
My thoughts were that the ArgoCD image updater automatically updates the .argo files which is then used by deployment to fetch the new docker image. We no longer use docker image tags or hash directly. Do you agree on this?
If we don't need this, it's fine. But shouldn't the update section be removed from the other workflow then, too?
Yes, it should be removed. Let's do it after Alicja is back with a different PR.
Okay, I'll just approve and merge then.
Oh, wait, what is it about these failing tests?
Attention: 1 lines
in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Comparison is base (
4879864
) 93.30% compared to head (8122a47
) 93.33%. Report is 30 commits behind head on master.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
[Description of PR]
This PR introduces a new workflow which builds and pushes a new xcube docker image. This is a workaround for the timeout errors in unit test which blocks us from making a release.
Checklist:
~ [ ] Add unit tests and/or doctests in docstrings~ ~ [ ] Add docstrings and API docs for any new/modified user-facing classes and functions~ ~ [ ] New/modified features documented in `docs/source/`~
CHANGES.md
~ [ ] GitHub CI passes~ ~ [ ] AppVeyor CI passes~ ~* [ ] Test coverage remains or increases (target 100%)~