Enable more Packit-based Contest testing#14675
Enable more Packit-based Contest testing#14675jan-cerny merged 1 commit intoComplianceAsCode:masterfrom
Conversation
The original Contest upstream-parallel plan had `/static-checks`, but that was never executed because I forgot to add a third Packit job last time (adding them only for oscap/ansible remediation). Instead of having a job specifically for `/static-checks`, I extended the additional testing to include more plans, and grouped them all under `/other`, adding a new Packit job for the category. Signed-off-by: Jiri Jaburek <comps@nomail.dom>
|
@comps: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
Note that the test failures are expected - they refer to issues that crept into upstream code while we weren't testing for them. Do we merge this PR with those failures present (and with the tests non-required) or should this PR stay unmerged until somebody fixes those issues? |
|
It would be more convenient to have them merged and enabled but not required so that we can submit a fix as a PR and immediately see in the GitHub interface that the fix fixes the issues. |
3 participants
Description:
The original Contest upstream-parallel plan had
/static-checks, but that was never executed because I forgot to add a third Packit job last time in #14392 (adding them only for oscap/ansible remediation).Instead of having a job specifically for
/static-checks, I extended the additional testing to include more plans, and grouped them all under/other, adding a new Packit job for the category.See RHSecurityCompliance/contest@3f808bb .
Rationale:
These tests would have caught several recent issues with unit test metadata and at least one recent rule-identifiers issue.
Review Hints:
Given that these currently find Content bugs, we should avoid marking the new job as "required" for now, until the bugs are fixed.