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

Smoke test isolation per package #23310

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 13, 2021
Merged

Conversation

ckairen
Copy link
Member

@ckairen ckairen commented Aug 13, 2021

This isolates the smoke tests by running it per package, rather than after the entire release, as discussed here: Azure/azure-sdk-tools#1841

Pipeline ref: https://dev.azure.com/azure-sdk/internal/_build/results?buildId=1046302&view=results

All SDK Contribution checklist:

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

  • Please open PR in Draft mode if it is:
    • Work in progress or not intended to be merged.
    • Encountering multiple pipeline failures and working on fixes.
  • If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec changes has been included above.
  • I have read the contribution guidelines.
  • The pull request does not introduce breaking changes.

General Guidelines and Best Practices

  • Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.

Testing Guidelines

  • Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.

SDK Generation Guidelines

  • The generate.cmd file for the SDK has been updated with the version of AutoRest, as well as the commitid of your swagger spec or link to the swagger spec, used to generate the code. (Track 2 only)
  • The *.csproj and AssemblyInfo.cs files have been updated with the new version of the SDK. Please double check nuget.org current release version.

Additional management plane SDK specific contribution checklist:

Note: Only applies to Microsoft.Azure.Management.[RP] or Azure.ResourceManager.[RP]

  • Include updated management metadata.
  • Update AzureRP.props to add/remove version info to maintain up to date API versions.

Management plane SDK Troubleshooting

  • If this is very first SDK for a services and you are adding new service folders directly under /SDK, please add new service label and/or contact assigned reviewer.

  • If the check fails at the Verify Code Generation step, please ensure:

    • Do not modify any code in generated folders.
    • Do not selectively include/remove generated files in the PR.
    • Do use generate.ps1/cmd to generate this PR instead of calling autorest directly.
      Please pay attention to the @microsoft.csharp version output after running generate.ps1. If it is lower than current released version (2.3.82), please run it again as it should pull down the latest version.

    Note: We have recently updated the PSH module called by generate.ps1 to emit additional data. This would help reduce/eliminate the Code Verification check error. Please run following command:

      `dotnet msbuild eng/mgmt.proj /t:Util /p:UtilityName=InstallPsModules`
    

Old outstanding PR cleanup

Please note:
If PRs (including draft) has been out for more than 60 days and there are no responses from our query or followups, they will be closed to maintain a concise list for our reviewers.

@@ -22,6 +22,9 @@

<!-- This is needed to resolve a build conflict and force the correct version -->
<PackageReference Include="System.Net.NameResolution" Version="4.3.0" />

<!-- This is needed for non-nightly smoke test runs -->
<PackageReference Include="Azure.Template" Version="1.0.2" />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you help me understand why the template project needs to be referenced? Nothing published should be using it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ckairen correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect he added it so that he can use the template package to test these changes.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes this one is for testing the template package

}
name: check_smoke_tests_${{ artifact.safeName }}
displayName: Check smoke test eligibility for ${{ artifact.name }}
- ${{ if and(ne(variables['Skip.Release'], 'true'), ne(parameters.Artifact.skipPublishPackage, 'true')) }}:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lets ensure that we are correctly scoping to the exact package we are releasing.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Daily: false
Artifacts: ${{ parameters.Artifacts }}
ArtifactName: ${{ parameters.ArtifactName }}
- ${{if and(eq(variables['Build.Reason'], 'Manual'), eq(variables['System.TeamProject'], 'internal'))}}:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FWIW, I changed ".com" to ".dev" and it made this change much easier to visualize: https://github.dev/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/pull/23310

I see it puts it equivalent with the previous - ${{if}} on line 201, thus making it part of each artifact's Release stage.

@ckairen ckairen merged commit b41f087 into main Aug 13, 2021
@ckairen ckairen deleted the albertcheng/smoke-test-isolation branch August 13, 2021 20:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants