-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 766
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
[MAINT]: Add GitHub Actions workflow for integration testing #2425
Comments
@stevehipwell Thanks for the thoughts and input here! ❤ If you're up for it, this idea would be really great to see in code so that we can get a more clear picture of your thoughts here. I've also added the up for grabs label just incase others are up for working on this as well. |
@nickfloyd I was working from a memory that there weren't automated tests in GH Actions and from the fact that my PRs never get automated tests. However I just checked out what's there and I can see automated tests for branches with a |
OK, I can see what the issue is. I'll have a go at fixing this. |
@nickfloyd @kfcampbell I've got #2476 running and would expect the anonamous tests to work as is. Do you have a list of the currently broken acceptance tests as that'll help me figure out what should be working? Based on running some of the tests it looks like there are tests being run in anonymous mode which wont work. |
We don't have a comprehensive list of broken acceptance tests unfortunately. As the suite hasn't been run front-to-back (maybe ever?), this is not readily available information. Also, it depends heavily on a really organized test setup that we just don't have (or have documented) at the moment: enterprise, organizations, test accounts, GitHub Apps, Enterprise Server instances, EMUs, Actions runners, various GitHub plans, etc., and many of those resources cost money in addition to the overhead in maintaining the test setup. #1414 is an attempt to quantify some of that setup, but hasn't taken off due to a lack of funding.
Agreed that we cannot run all tests in anonymous mode. Running any tests with anonymous mode would be a step up. However, the test setup is stale, as you've noticed in your PR. I just checked and I'm an admin on github.com/terraformtesting, which is cool, but I have no idea where these In order for this to be successful long-term, we'll need organizational buy-in from GitHub to support time and money into testing the provider so that we can get resources deployed and maintained for testing purposes. I unfortunately have been unsuccessful in my quest to sell this as a valid use of company resources thus far; hence my ad-hoc testing before merges with my own testing org/accounts. |
@kfcampbell could you provide the list of tests that pass locally in your manual testing for each type (anon, user, org) when targeting github.com? Once I have these I'll look at skipping the currently failing tests conditionally based on type. I aim to have the tests where anonymous is valid running in GitHub Actions ASAP. Could you please add
After the above we will need to work on the authenticated tests. I suspect that as well as a test user we need a free organisation, a team organisation and an enterprise organisation for the testing to be valid, does that ring true? The process here will be to have the credentials stored as environment secrets on the environments created above ( |
Describe the need
When pushing a change to the code I'd like the integration tests to be able to be run. This doesn't have to be automatic as there are a number of models which could be applied to stop integration credentials being abused.
I'd be happy to contribute the code to do this.
SDK Version
No response
API Version
No response
Relevant log output
No response
Code of Conduct
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: