🌱 (ci) add GitHub Action to validate installation

[camilamacedo86]

• Adds a GitHub Action to validate the installation process in CI, detecting issues in scripts/install.tpl.sh.
• This workflow follows steps from the Getting Started guide, reducing installation errors.

Motivation:
The error seen in PR #1429 would have been detected with this action in place.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	1bd3281
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/6738a7cad8442900087ff255
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1450--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[joelanford]

I don't think this will work on MacOS.

On MacOS, when we build a container, we need to specifically cross-compile to GOOS=linux. That's why the go-build-linux targets exist.

[joelanford]

I think we _can_probably remove the hardcoded GOARCH setting though.

[joelanford]

@camilamacedo86 That container won't be runnable in a cluster because it is darwin/arm64, which can't run in a linux-based kubernetes environment.

[everettraven]

I don't think that we need a dedicated action to run the install script. All e2e runs in CI will use the install script so I would expect install script issues to be present in e2e runs.

[camilamacedo86]

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem accurate. We’ve been addressing issues with the script for exactly this reason. For example, the error in PR #1429 OR #1411 would have prevented the CI from passing. Could you please check and let me know where this test might be duplicated elsewhere?

[trgeiger]

The Makefile as it is on 'main' right now works fine for me on Linux. The test you linked to above is failing because it appears it was before you changed the docker-build line to target the ./bin directory rather than ./bin/linux.

I don't have access to a mac but I don't really see how the changes in this PR are really different from how it worked before--it seems to just be changing where we build the binaries from ./bin/linux to ./bin? And it's also effectively removing the functionality of the existing 'go-build-local' target and replacing it with the current 'go-build-linux,' just renaming them and removing the former since you're still setting GOOS=linux.

It is interesting that the existing go-build-local on main isn't directly used anywhere--I'm assuming it's there for cases where somebody wanted to compile locally and would just locally edit the docker-build target to use 'build' for one-off testing. Maybe we should just make another docker-build target that uses -local, i.e. docker-build-local, if that's a workflow we see people needing/wanting

[joelanford]

I agree with @everettraven. We are (in theory) automatically generating a manifest and rendering an install script as part of the e2e.

If there are gaps in what happens with the installation during the e2e, let's fix it in the e2e instead of introducing a separate test.

[everettraven]

@camilamacedo86 Part of running our e2e tests includes doing, more or less, what you are doing here.

If you look at the test-e2e make target at

operator-controller/Makefile

Lines 179 to 188 in 6d79092

	# When running the e2e suite, you can set the ARTIFACT_PATH variable to the absolute path
	# of the directory for the operator-controller e2e tests to store the artifacts, which
	# may be helpful for debugging purposes after a test run.
	#
	# for example: ARTIFACT_PATH=/tmp/artifacts make test-e2e
	.PHONY: test-e2e
	test-e2e: KIND_CLUSTER_NAME := operator-controller-e2e
	test-e2e: KUSTOMIZE_BUILD_DIR := config/overlays/e2e
	test-e2e: GO_BUILD_FLAGS := -cover
	test-e2e: run image-registry e2e e2e-coverage kind-clean #HELP Run e2e test suite on local kind cluster

and dig even further into the run target at

operator-controller/Makefile

Lines 279 to 280 in 6d79092

	.PHONY: run
	run: docker-build kind-cluster kind-load kind-deploy #HELP Build the operator-controller then deploy it into a new kind cluster.

you can see that it runs the make targets docker-build, kind-cluster, kind-load, and kind-deploy. The kind-deploy target at

operator-controller/Makefile

Lines 222 to 226 in 6d79092

	.PHONY: kind-deploy
	kind-deploy: export MANIFEST="./operator-controller.yaml"
	kind-deploy: manifests $(KUSTOMIZE) #EXHELP Install controller and dependencies onto the kind cluster.
	$(KUSTOMIZE) build $(KUSTOMIZE_BUILD_DIR) > operator-controller.yaml
	envsubst '$$CATALOGD_VERSION,$$CERT_MGR_VERSION,$$INSTALL_DEFAULT_CATALOGS,$$MANIFEST' < scripts/install.tpl.sh | bash -s

uses the same installation script that we generate for releases.

Essentially, everything you are doing in this CI action is already done as part of all of our e2e runs in CI.

I'm not quite sure why CI didn't catch the issues you linked, but I also never ended up running into those problems. Is it possible that there may be some difference in tooling versions that resulted in you experiencing those issues?

[camilamacedo86]

HI @everettraven

docker-build kind-cluster kind-load kind-deploy

I see that is calling so that is true.
Thank you for point out.

Is it possible that there may be some difference in tooling versions that resulted in you experiencing those issues?

Not that is not really possible
if you revert #1429 OR #1411 you will see that the error occurs always.

So probably we move forward besides the e2e failures.

[camilamacedo86]

Closing this one.
@everettraven point out that we are doing those tests; #1450 (comment)
if we revert #1429 OR #1411 you will see that the error occurs always.

So, we probably move forward besides the e2e failures.
that is fine

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 57.20%. Comparing base (63ef902) to head (1bd3281).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (63ef902) and HEAD (1bd3281). Click for more details.

HEAD has 2 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (63ef902)	HEAD (1bd3281)
unit	2	1
e2e	2	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1450       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   74.73%   57.20%   -17.53%     
===========================================
  Files          42       42               
  Lines        3241     3241               
===========================================
- Hits         2422     1854      -568     
- Misses        646     1295      +649     
+ Partials      173       92       -81     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	0.00% <ø> (-52.33%)	⬇️
unit	57.20% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.