Skip to content

USHIFT-6712: Skip release block in run_bootc_image_build() microshift CI jobs #6382

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
agullon wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+7 −5
Open

USHIFT-6712: Skip release block in run_bootc_image_build() microshift CI jobs #6382

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7b0726d
add condition to skip build bootc images for release CI jobs
agullon Mar 20, 2026
d00148e
remove build layer4-release on CI test jobs
agullon Mar 23, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 7 additions & 5 deletions test/bin/ci_phase_iso_build.sh
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -122,9 +122,14 @@ run_bootc_image_build() {
$(dry_run) bash -x ./bin/build_bootc_images.sh -g ./image-blueprints-bootc/templates

if [ -v CI_JOB_NAME ] ; then
# Skip all image builds for release testing CI jobs because all the images are fetched from the cache.
if [[ "${CI_JOB_NAME}" =~ .*release(-arm)?(-el(9|10))?$ ]]; then
$(dry_run) bash -x ./bin/build_bootc_images.sh -X
return
fi
Copy link
Contributor

@ggiguash ggiguash Mar 20, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we remove this block?

Copy link
Contributor

@ggiguash ggiguash Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, why do we need such a complex regex?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@agullon agullon Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what block to you mean? the link redirects me to this comment

Copy link
Contributor Author

@agullon agullon Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

About the regexp, I modify it a little bit to improve readability but I think it's good as it is, see this for better understanding: https://regex101.com/r/VivrQ3/2

Copy link
Contributor

@ggiguash ggiguash Mar 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The regexp is good, but it's more complex than required. All other places we use a simpler .*release.* expression, which should be good here as well, right?

Copy link
Contributor

@ggiguash ggiguash Mar 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the lines of code, I mean lines 141-143 (before the change) or 146-148 after.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@agullon agullon Mar 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the lines of code, I mean lines 141-143 (before the change) or 146-148 after.

you are right, done

Copy link
Contributor Author

@agullon agullon Mar 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The regexp is good, but it's more complex than required. All other places we use a simpler .release. expression, which should be good here as well, right?

.*release.* regexp is not a good idea because it will also match other jobs from release branches, e.g. release-4.22. To be honest, I can't came up with a better regexp :(

Copy link
Contributor Author

@agullon agullon Mar 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ggiguash can you please review this PR again?


local -r os="${CI_JOB_NAME##*-}"

if [[ "${os}" == "el9" || "${os}" == "el10" ]]; then

$(dry_run) bash -x ./bin/build_bootc_images.sh -l ./image-blueprints-bootc/layer1-base
Expand All @@ -138,11 +143,8 @@ run_bootc_image_build() {
if [[ "${CI_JOB_NAME}" =~ .*periodic.* ]]; then
$(dry_run) bash -x ./bin/build_bootc_images.sh -l "./image-blueprints-bootc/${os}/layer3-periodic"
fi
if [[ "${CI_JOB_NAME}" =~ .*release.* ]]; then
$(dry_run) bash -x ./bin/build_bootc_images.sh -l ./image-blueprints-bootc/layer4-release
fi
fi

# Build upstream images
if [[ "${CI_JOB_NAME}" =~ .*upstream.* ]]; then
$(dry_run) bash -x ./bin/build_bootc_images.sh -l ./image-blueprints-bootc/upstream
Expand Down