Skip to content

[KF-7841] Add workflow release inputs#81

Merged
mvlassis merged 16 commits intotrack/1.10from
kf-7841-specify-track-and-risk
Oct 24, 2025
Merged

[KF-7841] Add workflow release inputs#81
mvlassis merged 16 commits intotrack/1.10from
kf-7841-specify-track-and-risk

Conversation

@deusebio
Copy link
Contributor

Addressing #60

@deusebio deusebio force-pushed the kf-7841-specify-track-and-risk branch from 6a62941 to 4c141c5 Compare October 10, 2025 11:43
@deusebio deusebio requested review from NohaIhab and mvlassis October 13, 2025 07:22
@deusebio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ideally, we could prioritize #82 and then add this features of controlling release inputs to those workflows as well

Copy link
Contributor

@mvlassis mvlassis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left small comments-questions

Copy link
Contributor

@NohaIhab NohaIhab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks @deusebio, +1 to include #82 in the changes once it is merged. Can you also link a test run for the workflow dispatch with a different risk input?

@deusebio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can you also link a test run for the workflow dispatch with a different risk input?

That's really a great idea! I always forget that - as long as the CI is already in main - you can already test the dispatch flow! :D
Let me give it a go here.

Ideally, I believe we would also like to test to change the track (e.g. using 1.9), but I'm afraid that the 1.9 track does not yet support using the risk right now. So it would probably fail. I would honestly approach this in a different ticket

@deusebio
Copy link
Contributor Author

@NohaIhab it didn't work unfortunately because we don't yet have the risk in the main branch. But this made me realize that probably it is best to NOT use the "CKF version" (as in the github issue), but just the branch, like track/1.10, this way we can also run tests on dev branches.

What do you think folks?

@deusebio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tested on dispatch here

@deusebio deusebio requested review from NohaIhab and mvlassis October 16, 2025 16:27
Copy link
Contributor

@mvlassis mvlassis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes more sense to also allow non track/* branches :)

@deusebio deusebio force-pushed the kf-7841-specify-track-and-risk branch from 9f235b5 to c672c28 Compare October 22, 2025 13:31
@deusebio deusebio changed the title [KF-7841] Add workflow release inputs for AKS and EKS [KF-7841] Add workflow release inputs Oct 22, 2025
@deusebio
Copy link
Contributor Author

deusebio commented Oct 23, 2025

I have tested that the workflow inputs work as expected:

The tests shows that tests can be triggered with the input provided appropriately. However, there is a regular failure on the EKS cluster that will need to be investigated separately, issue #87

@deusebio deusebio requested review from NohaIhab and mvlassis October 23, 2025 13:22
Copy link
Contributor

@mvlassis mvlassis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for raising a relevant issue @deusebio!

@mvlassis mvlassis merged commit 73efbf2 into track/1.10 Oct 24, 2025
14 of 17 checks passed
@mvlassis mvlassis deleted the kf-7841-specify-track-and-risk branch October 24, 2025 11:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants