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

test: Deploy local ccruntime for s390x #485

Conversation

BbolroC
Copy link
Member

@BbolroC BbolroC commented Jan 22, 2025

quay.io/confidential-containers/reqs-payload has been used for ccruntime for s390x because config/sample/default/kustomization.yaml is patched. This is only valid for x86_64, but s390x.
It should be config/sample/${ccruntime_overlay}/kustomization.yaml. Let's use a local image for the platform.

Signed-off-by: Hyounggyu Choi [email protected]

@BbolroC BbolroC requested a review from a team as a code owner January 22, 2025 17:24
Copy link
Member

@fitzthum fitzthum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@BbolroC
Copy link
Member Author

BbolroC commented Jan 22, 2025

I've checked the following to ensure that kustomize is installed:

- name: Check kustomize is installed
shell: command -v kustomize >/dev/null 2>&1
register: kustomize_exist
ignore_errors: yes
- name: Install kustomize
shell: |
GOBIN=/usr/local/bin GO111MODULE=on go install sigs.k8s.io/kustomize/kustomize/v5@latest
args:
creates: /usr/local/bin/kustomize
retries: 3
delay: 10
when: kustomize_exist.rc != 0

I will update the PR to remove ensure_kustomize().

`quay.io/confidential-containers/reqs-payload` has been used
for ccruntime for s390x. Let's use a local image for deployment.

Signed-off-by: Hyounggyu Choi <[email protected]>
@BbolroC BbolroC force-pushed the deploy-local-ccruntime-for-s390x branch from fe58643 to 36c6774 Compare January 22, 2025 18:31
Copy link
Member

@stevenhorsman stevenhorsman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Thanks @BbolroC!

@fitzthum
Copy link
Member

Well the 20.04 test is failing with the disk pressure thing. We tried cherry-picking something onto #483 to fix that, but that PR is still failing and this PR doesn't have the change.

@fidencio
Copy link
Member

Well the 20.04 test is failing with the disk pressure thing. We tried cherry-picking something onto #483 to fix that, but that PR is still failing and this PR doesn't have the change.

It also fails on #483 if that makes it better.

@BbolroC
Copy link
Member Author

BbolroC commented Jan 23, 2025

@BbolroC
Copy link
Member Author

BbolroC commented Jan 23, 2025

I'm closing this because #483 has cherry-picked this and the CI has passed. Thanks.

@BbolroC BbolroC closed this Jan 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants