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

Add github actions job for the creating/terminating databricks cluster #2043

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Lee-W
Copy link
Collaborator

@Lee-W Lee-W commented Sep 27, 2023

Description

What is the current behavior?

run databricks testing on an existing cluster

What is the new behavior?

  • bring up a databricks cluster
  • run the databricks tests
  • terminate cluster

In this PR, I also unify the yaml style in .github. The main changes live in the first and the third commit

Does this introduce a breaking change?

no

Checklist

  • Created tests which fail without the change (if possible)
  • Extended the README / documentation, if necessary

@Lee-W Lee-W force-pushed the databricks-cost-saving branch 2 times, most recently from 2d19571 to 7265900 Compare September 27, 2023 11:04
@Lee-W Lee-W changed the title ci(scripts): databricks script for bring up and terminate cluster Add git job for the creating/terminating databricks cluster Sep 27, 2023
@Lee-W Lee-W force-pushed the databricks-cost-saving branch 2 times, most recently from 5842697 to ea43e4e Compare September 27, 2023 11:07
@Lee-W
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Lee-W commented Sep 27, 2023

@phanikumv @tatiana We're now testing bringing up the databricks cluster and then terminating it after the tests. Could you please help us set up DATABRICKS_HOST in secret? Thanks!

@Lee-W Lee-W marked this pull request as ready for review September 27, 2023 11:10
@Lee-W Lee-W requested a review from a team September 27, 2023 11:10
@tatiana
Copy link
Collaborator

tatiana commented Sep 27, 2023

I just added the secret, @Lee-W !

@Lee-W Lee-W force-pushed the databricks-cost-saving branch 2 times, most recently from fc7576f to 29052b1 Compare September 27, 2023 14:11
@Lee-W Lee-W changed the title Add git job for the creating/terminating databricks cluster Add github workflow job for the creating/terminating databricks cluster Sep 28, 2023
@Lee-W Lee-W changed the title Add github workflow job for the creating/terminating databricks cluster Add github actions job for the creating/terminating databricks cluster Sep 28, 2023
@Lee-W Lee-W force-pushed the databricks-cost-saving branch 2 times, most recently from df5c262 to 7b9730d Compare September 28, 2023 08:16
@Lee-W Lee-W force-pushed the databricks-cost-saving branch from 7b9730d to 839f25c Compare September 28, 2023 10:19
@Lee-W Lee-W force-pushed the databricks-cost-saving branch from 839f25c to 1ed8cb0 Compare October 3, 2023 08:23
@Lee-W
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Lee-W commented Oct 4, 2023

Thanks @tatiana ! After a few tests, I found out we might need an extra secret here. Already DM you the secret. Could you please help us set it up? Thanks

@tatiana
Copy link
Collaborator

tatiana commented Oct 4, 2023

Hi @Lee-W , I just added it - thank you very much for working on this!

Copy link
Collaborator

@tatiana tatiana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Lee-W this ticket is hard work 😬
Please ping us when the tests are passing so we can merge it!

@Lee-W
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Lee-W commented Oct 11, 2023

@Lee-W this ticket is hard work 😬 Please ping us when the tests are passing so we can merge it!

The next thing I'll try is make the secrets small strings instead of the whole json.

It seems structured data as json is not recommended by github https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-guides/using-secrets-in-github-actions#naming-your-secrets

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.

2 participants