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

chore: always set explicit base compose file #3037

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 24, 2024

Conversation

gartnera
Copy link
Member

@gartnera gartnera commented Oct 23, 2024

Description

export NODE_COMPOSE_ARGS="-f docker-compose-persistent.yml"
make start-e2e-test

was broken because we did not provide -f docker-compose.yml in start-e2e-test. Ensure it's always provided explicitly via the DOCKER_COMPOSE variable.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced flexibility in the Docker Compose command usage for localnet services.
    • Added a section for testing governance proposals in the documentation.
  • Documentation

    • Improved structure and clarity in the LOCAL_TESTING.md document.
    • Standardized formatting for command examples and expanded descriptions for better usability.
    • Included additional details on monitoring setup and interaction with ZetaChain and EVM.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 23, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request primarily involve modifications to the Makefile and updates to the LOCAL_TESTING.md documentation. The Makefile adjustments focus on redefining the DOCKER_COMPOSE command to enhance flexibility by removing the explicit reference to docker-compose.yml, allowing for additional arguments. The documentation improvements in LOCAL_TESTING.md aim to clarify instructions and enhance the organization of localnet development and testing processes, including command usage and interaction with ZetaChain.

Changes

File Change Summary
Makefile Updated DOCKER_COMPOSE definition to remove -f docker-compose.yml from multiple targets.
docs/development/LOCAL_TESTING.md Enhanced clarity and organization, standardized formatting, expanded command descriptions, added details on monitoring and governance proposals.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

ci

Suggested reviewers

  • lumtis
  • fbac
  • kingpinXD
  • swift1337
  • skosito
  • brewmaster012

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@gartnera gartnera requested a review from a team October 23, 2024 19:00
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 93ebef4 and 2ad17da.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • Makefile (7 hunks)
  • docs/development/LOCAL_TESTING.md (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (5)
docs/development/LOCAL_TESTING.md (1)

Line range hint 1-999: Documentation is comprehensive and well-structured.

The documentation provides clear instructions for all aspects of local testing, including:

  • Different types of tests (e2e, admin, upgrade, stress)
  • Monitoring setup
  • Local environment interaction
  • Governance testing

The structure is logical and the examples are clear.

🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint

43-43: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified

(MD040, fenced-code-language)

Makefile (4)

11-11: LGTM: Explicit base compose file definition

The change ensures -f docker-compose.yml is always included while maintaining flexibility through NODE_COMPOSE_ARGS.


224-228: LGTM: Consistent localnet command updates

The changes correctly utilize the new DOCKER_COMPOSE variable definition, and the comment about profile handling in stop-localnet provides useful context.


Line range hint 256-292: LGTM: Consistent E2E test command updates

All E2E test commands have been updated to use the new DOCKER_COMPOSE variable while maintaining their specific test configurations through E2E_ARGS.


Line range hint 324-355: Verify the need for explicit upgrade compose file

While the PR's objective is to always include the base compose file, the upgrade commands explicitly specify -f docker-compose-upgrade.yml. Please verify if both compose files (base and upgrade) are needed for these commands.

Let's check if both compose files are required:

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the compose files to understand their relationship better.

This will help us understand if the upgrade compose file extends or overrides the base compose file, and whether both files are indeed necessary for the upgrade tests.


Both compose files are necessary for upgrade tests

The explicit specification of -f docker-compose-upgrade.yml is correct and necessary because:

  1. The base docker-compose.yml provides the core infrastructure setup including networks, volumes, and service configurations
  2. The docker-compose-upgrade.yml specifically overrides the image tags to zetanode:old for all services, which is crucial for testing the upgrade process
  3. The upgrade profile services (upgrade-host, upgrade-orchestrator) are defined in the base compose file

This is a proper Docker Compose override pattern where:

  • Base file defines the complete infrastructure
  • Upgrade file overrides only the necessary attributes (image versions)
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check compose file dependencies for upgrade tests

echo "Checking compose file references:"
rg -A 3 "docker-compose.*\.yml" contrib/localnet/

Length of output: 896


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of docker-compose-upgrade.yml and docker-compose.yml
echo "=== Content of docker-compose-upgrade.yml ==="
cat contrib/localnet/docker-compose-upgrade.yml

echo -e "\n=== Content of docker-compose.yml ==="
cat contrib/localnet/docker-compose.yml

Length of output: 12209

docs/development/LOCAL_TESTING.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gartnera gartnera added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 24, 2024
Merged via the queue into develop with commit b334267 Oct 24, 2024
35 checks passed
@gartnera gartnera deleted the compose-explicit-base-file branch October 24, 2024 00:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
no-changelog Skip changelog CI check
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants