3:12 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:34 AM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com> wrote:
How about this:
* Rebuild Docker image for every PR. We can probably do this with a webhook or
somethin'.
If we think about 3 repositories or more getting new PRs. This might
become a bit expensive, don't you think? I'd suggest another
alternative, but that would require a bot to trigger the docker build
on demand. This would be the flow proposed:
1. PR submitted and tested against the nightly build
2. PR failed the author add a comment like @keycloak-bot
build-keycloak-server rerun
3. The bot check if user has the rights for it, trigger the build of
the docker image and run the tests again
This is just a suggestion which I understand, requires some time. But
this is the best which I can come up with. Or we can try what you
suggested and see how it goes.
* Write a script that can be shared to all projects that need a
Keycloak server. It would check the latest Docker hub image and see if it matches master.
If it doesn't it would build the image locally. Then it would start the Keycloak
server. Could use the same script for Node.js, Generic Adapter, QuickStarts, etc..
+1
Once we reach an agreement on this, with whatever approach we decided.
We can file a Jira.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 15:10, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
>
> Let's do this, I will change it to always build Keycloak from master
> and later we can think about docker images. I think Docker images
> would be better, at the same time, I'm not sure how fix the scenario
> where feature A on Node.js adapter, depends on Feature B merged on
> Keycloak master and both have to be merged/tested in the same day.
>
> Unless we do something like Hynek suggested.
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:33 AM Hynek Mlnarik <hmlnarik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is nightly enough?
> >
> > Consider keycloak repo breaks due to some change and the quickstarts cannot be
built until this is fixed. In nightly, that would delay the development to the next day.
> >
> > My vote is to either build Keycloak from master like Bruno suggested or have a
way documented to rebuild the "latest" image (regardless of "nightly"
name) anytime on demand to enable dependent changes to be developed quickly.
> >
> > --Hynek
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:34 AM Vaclav Muzikar <vmuzikar(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> We've got a nightly CI job testing Node.js adapter against upstream but
> >> running it in Travis (with each PR) would make more sense.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:40 PM Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org>
wrote:
> >>
> >> > Good morning,
> >> >
> >> > Last week Pedro submitted a PR to the Node.js adapter, but the build
is
> >> > failing because it depends on the changes from Keycloak server master
> >> > branch.
> >> >
> >> > Today we download the latest stable release from Keycloak to run the
> >> > integration tests for this adapter. I would like to change it and
follow
> >> > the same approach from the Quickstarts, which means clone/build/run
> >> > Keycloak server from master. In this way, we can always it test
against
> >> > the latest changes.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > abstractj
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> >> > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Václav Muzikář
> >> Quality Engineer
> >> Keycloak / Red Hat Single Sign-On
> >> Red Hat Czech s.r.o.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>
>
> --
> - abstractj
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
--
- abstractj