Monitoring the general state of continuous integration tests #438
Labels
No Label
abra
abra-gandi
awaiting-feedback
backups
bug
build
ci/cd
community organising
contributing
coopcloud.tech
democracy
design
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
finance
funding
good first issue
help wanted
installer
kadabra
performance
proposal
question
recipes.coopcloud.tech
security
test
wontfix
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: coop-cloud/organising#438
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Currently, some (most?) recipes have basic continuous integration tests, e.g. Wordpress:
And yet!
So, how to make this all more visible?
Yeh, good to raise it. Some great has been put in! Thanks all 👏 Some thoughts...
I guess there is some avoidance of this due to the fact of not existing for so long (like the missing
abra
test suite) and also, it is a bit unreliable (i.e. what is it really testing?) and also it is bit complicated to grasp. Also, it kinda falls into the "whose responsibility is this?" hole.There are so many apps and there are so many
.drone.yml
configs, so it's also kinda overwhelming. Maybe we only CI test apps that have some rating of 3+ or something? Or some way to thin it down to a maintained listing which can be watched over going forward.I think we need to switch from
stack-ssh-deploy
to actually usingabra
? And some scenarios, instead of just deploy only (e.g. "can make new app from recipe", "can backup deployed app", etc.)? Again, I'm thinking of the YunoHost CI system.Idk maybe we need to work back from the automation to how can we test things manually ourselves on our local workstations? Easier to grasp and for people to be involved in. This was what we ended up with the recipe versioning automation?
Related: #401
Following on from #438 (comment) 👉 #491