[ovs-dev] [PATCH ovn] Add weekly CI job that uses OVS master.

[Mark Michelson]

On 1/28/21 5:21 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 1/28/21 1:59 AM, Mark Michelson wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Michelson <mmichels at redhat.com>
>> ---
>> This patch is based on the "Include OVS as a git submodule." patch,
>> which, at this time has not been merged into OVN master yet.
>> ---
>>   .github/workflows/weekly.yml | 147 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   Makefile.am                  |   1 +
>>   2 files changed, 148 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 .github/workflows/weekly.yml
>>
>> diff --git a/.github/workflows/weekly.yml b/.github/workflows/weekly.yml
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000..60b81ce95
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/.github/workflows/weekly.yml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
>> +name: Weekly Jobs
>> +
>> +on:
>> +  schedule:
>> +    # Run Sunday at midnight
>> +    - cron: '0 0 * * 0'
>> +
>> +# XXX Github actions provides no way
>> +# of creating template yaml files to be
>> +# included for multiple pipelines. Most
>> +# of the below code is copied directly
>> +# from test.yml. If Github ever provides
>> +# support for importing yaml or defining
>> +# templates, this repeated code could be
>> +# refactored.
> 
> This, probably, could be done differently.  It is possible to check the
> event type that triggered the build, so it should be possible to add
> 'on: schedule:' part to the existing workflow and have a conditional
> step to checkout OVS master that works only on scheduled runs:
> 
>      - name: checkout OVS master
>        if: ${{ github.event_name == 'schedule' }}
>        uses: actions/checkout at v2
>          ...
> 
> I don't think we can change the name of workflow in this case, but web
> interface allows to filter by event, so it shouldn't be a big problem.
> 
> What do you think?

Sounds good to me. The other change is to not update the submodules in 
the case when the event is "push" or "pull_request". I like this 
approach much more than copying the entirety of the file.

If we reach a point where the weekly tests diverge from the push/pull 
request tests by a lot, then we may want to re-evaluate how this is laid 
out, since it will require lots of ifs. In the meantime, this will work 
perfectly fine.

> 
> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>