Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove usage of ttl.sh #2653

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 21, 2025
Merged

Remove usage of ttl.sh #2653

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 21, 2025

Conversation

matejvasek
Copy link
Contributor

@matejvasek matejvasek commented Jan 16, 2025

  • Removed usage of ttl.sh registry in the tests.
  • Fixed detection of hostname resolution failure.

Signed-off-by: Matej Vašek <[email protected]>
@knative-prow knative-prow bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 16, 2025
@knative-prow knative-prow bot requested review from nainaz and vyasgun January 16, 2025 16:00
@knative-prow knative-prow bot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 16, 2025
@matejvasek
Copy link
Contributor Author

PTAL @jrangelramos

@matejvasek matejvasek requested review from matzew, gauron99 and lkingland and removed request for nainaz and vyasgun January 16, 2025 16:03
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 65.42%. Comparing base (09e2eef) to head (e2b7b67).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2653      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   64.13%   65.42%   +1.28%     
==========================================
  Files         130      130              
  Lines       15518    15519       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         9953    10153     +200     
+ Misses       4625     4389     -236     
- Partials      940      977      +37     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e-test 35.80% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
e2e-test-oncluster 34.26% <100.00%> (+1.38%) ⬆️
e2e-test-oncluster-runtime 28.65% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-test-runtime-go 26.44% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-test-runtime-node 25.84% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-test-runtime-python 25.84% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-test-runtime-quarkus 25.96% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-test-runtime-rust 24.92% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-test-runtime-springboot 24.98% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-test-runtime-typescript 25.95% <0.00%> (?)
integration-tests 51.98% <0.00%> (+2.25%) ⬆️
unit-tests 50.93% <100.00%> (?)
unit-tests-macos-latest ?
unit-tests-ubuntu-latest ?
unit-tests-windows-latest ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@matejvasek
Copy link
Contributor Author

matejvasek commented Jan 16, 2025

Unfortunately it looks like Func E2E OnCluster Test / On Cluster Test (ubuntu-latest) (pull_request) does run also one non-on-cluster test which fails with the registry visible only from within the cluster.

Why it is so @jrangelramos ?

@jrangelramos
Copy link
Contributor

@matejvasek The test mentioned is the "TestFromCliBuildLocal". It cover the case which func.yaml indicates the build should be on-cluster but the user wants a local build and override this beavior from CLI --remote false (or ommited). An option would be to transfer this test to regular e2e test by replacing the build tag on the test file.

Copy link
Member

@lkingland lkingland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
(assuming the e2e works, which I retried)

@knative-prow knative-prow bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 18, 2025
Copy link

knative-prow bot commented Jan 18, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lkingland, matejvasek

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [lkingland,matejvasek]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@knative-prow knative-prow bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 20, 2025
@matejvasek
Copy link
Contributor Author

PTAL @lkingland @gauron99 @matzew

@matejvasek matejvasek requested a review from lkingland January 20, 2025 15:35
@matejvasek
Copy link
Contributor Author

PTAL @jrangelramos

Copy link
Member

@matzew matzew left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@knative-prow knative-prow bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 21, 2025
@knative-prow knative-prow bot merged commit d2aa94d into knative:main Jan 21, 2025
39 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants