Merge lp://staging/~sinzui/juju-ci-tools/use-s3ci-to-get into lp://staging/juju-ci-tools

Proposed by Curtis Hovey
Status: Merged
Merged at revision: 1855
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~sinzui/juju-ci-tools/use-s3ci-to-get
Merge into: lp://staging/juju-ci-tools
Diff against target: 160 lines (+23/-27)
9 files modified
assemble-parallel-streams.bash (+2/-1)
build-osx-client-remote.bash (+2/-2)
gotestwin.py (+6/-7)
jenkins_build_package.py (+5/-5)
parallel-streams-job.bash (+1/-2)
run-juju-eco-unit-tests.bash (+1/-3)
run-osx-client.bash (+1/-1)
test-restricted-network (+1/-2)
tests/test_gotestwin.py (+4/-4)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~sinzui/juju-ci-tools/use-s3ci-to-get
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Christopher Lee (community) Approve
Review via email: mp+315532@code.staging.launchpad.net

Description of the change

Use s3ci.py instead of jujuci.py.

jujuci.py is not reliable under parallel conditions. Its default
behaviour is to download artifacts from the *latest* build of a
jenkins job. The latest can be for a different build revision. This
is was caused the build-osx-client job to select the wrong tarfile.

There is a second bug in jujuci.py where it will try to get the exact
version you want, but it will only look 10 revisions back; we tested
13 yesterday!. As jenkins deletes old builds, there is no guarantee
that jujuci.py can get the artifacts.

s3ci.py does not have these limitations. There are 2 kinds of changes
that switch to s3ci.py.

1. get the juj-core tarfile, the exact tarfile, not the current one.

  build-osx-client-remote.bash
  gotestwin.py
  jenkins_build_package.py (not a test but a helper for us humans)
  tests/test_gotestwin.py

2. get buildvars.bash and source them. We do this in most scripts and
in jenkins jobs, but these scripts were skipped over the last year
    source $(s3ci.py get $revision_build build-revision buildvars.bash)

    assemble-parallel-streams.bash
    parallel-streams-job.bash
    run-osx-client.bash
    test-restricted-network

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Christopher Lee (veebers) wrote :

lgtm

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches