Impacted area based PR test. #15666
Impacted area based PR test. #15666
Conversation
| MIN_WORKER: $(INSTANCE_NUMBER) | ||
| MAX_WORKER: $(INSTANCE_NUMBER) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like they can only get from environment variables, do they have default value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not a environment variable, it's the variable set in calculate-instance-numbers.yml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, if the pre-step fail, do we have an default value of instance_number to always run the test like before.
As well as scripts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think if the pre-step fail, we will not continue the pipeline, just fail here. As the default instance number is not suitable, and it may cause too much time running PR testing.
.azure-pipelines/impacted_area_testing/impacted-area-elastictest-template.yml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.azure-pipelines/impacted_area_testing/calculate-instance-numbers.yml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| ingest_cluster = os.getenv("TEST_REPORT_QUERY_KUSTO_CLUSTER_BACKUP") | ||
| access_token = os.getenv('ACCESS_TOKEN', None) | ||
|
|
||
| if not ingest_cluster or not access_token: | ||
| raise RuntimeError( | ||
| "Could not load Kusto Credentials from environment") | ||
| else: | ||
| kcsb = KustoConnectionStringBuilder.with_aad_application_token_authentication(ingest_cluster, | ||
| access_token) # noqa F841 | ||
|
|
||
| client = KustoClient(kcsb) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If query from kusto fail, post action will be blocked, right? So, suggest to enhance it with setting default instance_num for the calculate_instance_number task.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have set the default instance number MAX_INSTANCE_NUMBER
yutongzhang-microsoft
force-pushed
the
yutongzhang/pr_impacted_area
branch
4 times, most recently
from
c9d0353 to
46f8aef
Compare
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
yutongzhang-microsoft
force-pushed
the
yutongzhang/pr_impacted_area
branch
from
5200cd3 to
bcf1534
Compare
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
yutongzhang-microsoft
force-pushed
the
yutongzhang/pr_impacted_area
branch
from
f9e5752 to
2e8d8c4
Compare
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Description of PR
Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
How did you do it?
How did you verify/test it?
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation