Skip to content
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

Test against pulumi/examples #1717

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

thomas11
Copy link
Contributor

  • Add pulumi/examples tests to examples/ test suite
  • Temporarily add regenerated ci-mgmt workflows directly

Copy link

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

Maintainer note: consult the runbook for dealing with any breaking changes.

@thomas11 thomas11 force-pushed the tkappler/test-pulumi-examples branch from 98d5f84 to 60738de Compare February 15, 2024 09:07
thomas11 added a commit to pulumi/ci-mgmt that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2024
…test suite (#823)

This change adds a new optional flag `testPulumiExamples` that can be
set in .ci-mgmt.yaml. When set, the acceptance tests in pulumi/examples
will be run as part of the test suite.

The goal is to increase test coverage in provider PRs or releases.
`pulumi/examples` has a rich set of realistic programs that can be used
for this via ProgramTest.

Providers don't necessarily need to gate PRs on these tests, they can be
informational only.

This requires that the provider's test suite in `examples/` is enabled
for this. See pulumi/pulumi-azure#1717 for an example. It's not enough
to just run the test suite in pulumi/examples because we want to use or
inject the locally built provider and SDKs of the current PR.

I chose the approach using the test job's matrix because the new
pulumi/examples tests should run concurrently to the regular ones, but
to run them in a separate job would require copying the lengthy setup
steps of the test job, or extracting the setup into a composite action
which I thought could be avoided.
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.

None yet

1 participant