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

[bp v1.5] backport CI changes to make the AB perf pipeline work #4400

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 23, 2024

Conversation

pb8o
Copy link
Contributor

@pb8o pb8o commented Jan 23, 2024

Changes

There was a change to the AB perf pipeline that wasn't matched in the code.

Reason

To continue trigerring the AB perf pipeline after merged in the v1.5 branch

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following
Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • The description of changes is clear and encompassing.
  • Any required documentation changes (code and docs) are included in this PR.
  • API changes follow the Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • User-facing changes are mentioned in CHANGELOG.md.
  • All added/changed functionality is tested.
  • New TODOs link to an issue.
  • Commits meet contribution quality standards.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

argparse's `action="append"` interacts unexpectedly with default
arguments, in the sense that it will _always_ include the default
arguments in the resulting list, and then appends any actually specified
argument to the default list. This meant that doing something like
`.buildkite/pipeline_perf.py --test memory-overhead` will first cause
steps for _every_ performance test be added, and then another copy of
the memory overhead step.

(cherry picked from commit 959ecdd)

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
@pb8o pb8o self-assigned this Jan 23, 2024
@pb8o pb8o added Priority: Low Indicates that an issue or pull request should be resolved behind issues or pull requests labelled ` Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed Type: Fix Indicates a fix to existing code labels Jan 23, 2024
@pb8o pb8o changed the base branch from main to firecracker-v1.5 January 23, 2024 13:36
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (48dcdae) 83.02% compared to head (4bb4d68) 83.02%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           firecracker-v1.5    #4400   +/-   ##
=================================================
  Coverage             83.02%   83.02%           
=================================================
  Files                   223      223           
  Lines                 28493    28493           
=================================================
  Hits                  23656    23656           
  Misses                 4837     4837           
Flag Coverage Δ
4.14-c7g.metal 78.54% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
4.14-m5d.metal 80.33% <ø> (ø)
4.14-m6a.metal 79.46% <ø> (ø)
4.14-m6g.metal 78.54% <ø> (ø)
4.14-m6i.metal 80.32% <ø> (ø)
5.10-c7g.metal 81.47% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5d.metal 83.01% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
5.10-m6a.metal 82.26% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6g.metal 81.47% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.01% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c7g.metal 81.47% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5d.metal 83.02% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
6.1-m6a.metal 82.26% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 81.47% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 83.01% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@wearyzen
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks!

@wearyzen wearyzen merged commit 7ae378a into firecracker-microvm:firecracker-v1.5 Jan 23, 2024
7 of 9 checks passed
@pb8o pb8o deleted the bp-15-ci branch October 9, 2024 07:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Priority: Low Indicates that an issue or pull request should be resolved behind issues or pull requests labelled ` Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed Type: Fix Indicates a fix to existing code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants