In a concurrent removal test, don't remove concurrently with builds #18664
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This test is intended to test concurrent removals, so don't risk a removal breaking a build. Fixes containers#18659 . (The sitaution that removals can break a build WIP is a real problem that should be fixed, but that's not a target of this test.) Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mtrmac 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
The duplication in defining /lgtm Thanks! |
|
Yeah, that and the 4 copies of I’m… trying to balance keeping Podman running, and getting at least a chance to work on my supposedly-primary projects. |
edsantiago
added a commit
to edsantiago/libpod
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2023
"image rm concurrent" test is still failing, even after containers#18664: Error: no contents in "/tmp/podman_test967723851/Dockerfile" Probable cause: the images are built in parallel, and p.BuildImage() writes one single Dockerfile. (This almost certainly renders the test less effective than intended, since the generated images might end up being identical). Solution: write and use a uniquely-named Dockerfile Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
edsantiago
added a commit
to edsantiago/libpod
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2023
"image rm concurrent" test is still failing, even after containers#18664: Error: no contents in "/tmp/podman_test967723851/Dockerfile" Probable cause: the images are built in parallel, and p.BuildImage() writes one single Dockerfile. (This almost certainly renders the test less effective than intended, since the generated images might end up being identical). Solution: write and use a uniquely-named Dockerfile Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
edsantiago
added a commit
to edsantiago/libpod
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2023
"image rm concurrent" test is still failing, even after containers#18664: Error: no contents in "/tmp/podman_test967723851/Dockerfile" Probable cause: the images are built in parallel, and p.BuildImage() writes one single Dockerfile. (This almost certainly renders the test less effective than intended, since the generated images might end up being identical). Solution: write and use a uniquely-named Dockerfile Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
github-actions
bot
added
the
locked - please file new issue/PR
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This test is intended to test concurrent removals, so don't risk a removal breaking a build.
Fixes #18659 .
(The situation that removals can break a build in progress is a real problem that should be fixed, but that's not a target of this test.)
Cc: @vrothberg , the test was added in #9266, to make sure I didn’t misunderstand the purpose.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?