Day2 assets_file differ from day1 asset_file

[bkopilov]

Looks like assets_file used as a lock when we call to get or to release_all In parallel tests while we may have creation for day1 and day2 clusters, We may consider to use the same lock because the resources are common.

Any reason to use different lock for day2 ?

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bkopilov
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign eranco74 for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[openshift-ci]

Hi @bkopilov. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a openshift member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions 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/test-infra repository.

[bkopilov]

@adriengentil , @lalon4

Current day2 use different lock for assets, not sure why but it make sense to use a single lock.
Am i missing somthnig ?

[adriengentil]

it was introduced here, because we may target another libvirt URI for day2: https://github.com/openshift/assisted-test-infra/pull/2044/files

Why is it a problem? AFAIK, this path should be enabled only when DAY2_LIBVIRT_URI is set

[bkopilov]

DAY2_LIBVIRT_URI

Hi ,
Ohh i see . i missed the if statment there... i am trying to fix parallel issues we have but i see now that my patch is not relevant to the tests becasue we dont use this param.

Thanks , lets close it . no need noise

[bkopilov]

My mistake ....