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

Fix scripts to be able to run tests in docker #4299

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 17, 2019

Conversation

aledbf
Copy link
Member

@aledbf aledbf commented Jul 9, 2019

What this PR does / why we need it:

./build/run-in-docker.sh make test

Which issue this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close that issue when PR gets merged): fixes #4297

Special notes for your reviewer:

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 9, 2019
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jul 9, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #4299 into master will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4299      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage    58.3%   58.33%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          87       87              
  Lines        6478     6478              
==========================================
+ Hits         3777     3779       +2     
+ Misses       2274     2273       -1     
+ Partials      427      426       -1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
internal/ingress/metric/collectors/process.go 90.42% <0%> (+2.12%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a54ab33...d5c7fa8. Read the comment docs.

@aledbf aledbf added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 9, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 9, 2019
@ElvinEfendi
Copy link
Member

@aledbf is this ready for review? Test failures are legit?

@aledbf aledbf force-pushed the cleanup branch 4 times, most recently from 056e83a to 3c15963 Compare July 15, 2019 19:03
@aledbf
Copy link
Member Author

aledbf commented Jul 15, 2019

/retest

@aledbf
Copy link
Member Author

aledbf commented Jul 15, 2019

/test pull-ingress-nginx-test

@aledbf
Copy link
Member Author

aledbf commented Jul 15, 2019

@ElvinEfendi ready for review

Makefile Show resolved Hide resolved
@ElvinEfendi
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 17, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aledbf, ElvinEfendi

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 84af99b into kubernetes:master Jul 17, 2019
@aledbf aledbf deleted the cleanup branch July 17, 2019 15:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

unit tests: run inside a container?
4 participants