Skip to content

Fixes Nightly CI#1169

Merged
J12934 merged 5 commits intosecureCodeBox:mainfrom
Ilyesbdlala:bugfix/fix-nightly-ci
May 20, 2022
Merged

Fixes Nightly CI#1169
J12934 merged 5 commits intosecureCodeBox:mainfrom
Ilyesbdlala:bugfix/fix-nightly-ci

Conversation

@Ilyesbdlala
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Closes #1132

I also replaced ubuntu-latest with the actual version that we use ubuntu-20.04 in ci.yaml : This done for consistency and also since ubuntu-22.04 LTS is in beta and will soon be latest.

@Ilyesbdlala Ilyesbdlala added the bug Bugs label May 12, 2022
@Ilyesbdlala Ilyesbdlala self-assigned this May 12, 2022
@Ilyesbdlala Ilyesbdlala requested a review from the-simmon May 12, 2022 14:34
@Ilyesbdlala
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Ilyesbdlala commented May 12, 2022

@Weltraumschaf Am I implementing the fork-rebase methodology correctly? How should this be then "merged" to main ?

@Weltraumschaf
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Weltraumschaf commented May 16, 2022

@Weltraumschaf Am I implementing the fork-rebase methodology correctly? How should this be then "merged" to main ?

What do you mean by "implementing"? A rebased branch is merged the same way as a non-rebased branch with git merge branch name from master branch. The difference is that git will say something like "merging fast-forward" and there will be no merge-commit afterwards.

Update: In GitLab one can see if a merge request is fast-forward mergable. Maybe GitHub has the same info somewhere here in the PR, but I couldn't see something like that after skimming through the UI.

The CI runs on python 3.8.10. The list type does not exist on this version
This is the cause for the failing zap-advanced unit-tests

Signed-off-by: Ilyes Ben Dlala <ilyes.bendlala@iteratec.com>
Corrected the python version with the one that's actually installed in the ubuntu version
the python version variable is currently not being used.
Replaced "ubuntu-latest" with "ubuntu-20.04" for accuracy

Signed-off-by: Ilyes Ben Dlala <ilyes.bendlala@iteratec.com>
Signed-off-by: Ilyes Ben Dlala <ilyes.bendlala@iteratec.com>
It's currently buggy and does not offer AFAIK more scope for our integration-tests

Signed-off-by: Ilyes Ben Dlala <ilyes.bendlala@iteratec.com>
This keeps the visibilty of the code.
This can simply later on be reverted if the nginx test proves to be necessary

Signed-off-by: Ilyes Ben Dlala <ilyes.bendlala@iteratec.com>
@Ilyesbdlala
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@Weltraumschaf Am I implementing the fork-rebase methodology correctly? How should this be then "merged" to main ?

What do you mean by "implementing"? A rebased branch is merged the same way as a non-rebased branch with git merge branch name from master branch. The difference is that git will say something like "merging fast-forward" and there will be no merge-commit afterwards.

Update: In GitLab one can see if a merge request is fast-forward mergable. Maybe GitHub has the same info somewhere here in the PR, but I couldn't see something like that after skimming through the UI.

I think we have to allow rebase merging in the repo settings : as seen here.

This PR should be "fast-forwardable", as I synced my fork with upstream already.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Bugs

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fix nightly CI runs

3 participants