de83cd9de7 tried to solve an issue, but it
clearly seems that I'm using env wrongly, as what ended up being passed
as input was "$VAR", instead of the content of the VAR variable.
As we can simply avoid using those here, let's do it and save us a
headache.
Fixes: #7247
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Otherwise we'll get the following error from the workflow:
```
The workflow is not valid. .github/workflows/ci-on-push.yaml (Line: 24,
Col: 20): Unrecognized named-value: 'env'. Located at position 1 within
expression: env.COMMIT_HASH .github/workflows/ci-on-push.yaml (Line: 25,
Col: 18): Unrecognized named-value: 'env'. Located at position 1 within
expression: env.PR_NUMBER
```
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This is based on the `ci-on-push.yaml` file, and it's called from ther
The reason to split on a new file is that we can easily introduce a
`ci-nightly.yaml` file and re-use the `ci.yaml` file there as well.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's ensure we're not relying, on any of the called workflows, on event
specific information.
Right now, the two information we've been relying on are:
* PR number, coming from github.event.pull_request.number
* Commit hash, coming from github.event.pull_request.head.sha
As we want to, in the future, add nightly jobs, which will be triggered
by a different event (thus, having different fields populated), we
should ensure that those are not used unless it's in the "top action"
that's trigerred by the event.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
We have GH configured so that manual approval is required for CI runs
triggered by outside contributors. However, because CI is triggered by
the `pull_request_target` event, this setting isn't being honored
(see [1]). This means that an attacker could trivially extracts secrets
by submitting a PR.
This change aims to mititgate this issue by preventing PRs from
triggering CI unless the `ok-to-test` label is set.
Note: For further context, we use the `pull_request_target` event and
manually check out the PR branch because it is the only way to both
access secrets and test incoming code changes.
Fixes: #7163
[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-workflow-runs/approving-workflow-runs-from-public-forks
Signed-off-by: Aurélien Bombo <abombo@microsoft.com>
This PR installs kata static tarball on metrics runner
and run launch-times tests.
Fixes: #7049
Signed-off-by: David Esparza <david.esparza.borquez@intel.com>
This gh-workflow prints a simple msg, but is the base for future
PRs that will gradually add the jobs corresponding to the kata
metrics test.
Fixes: #7100
Signed-off-by: David Esparza <david.esparza.borquez@intel.com>
Now that we've added a TDX capable external runner, let's make sure we
also run the basic tests using TDX.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's ensure we're only running this workflow when PRs are opened
against the main branch.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This reverts commit a159ffdba7.
Unfortunately we have to revert the PRs related to the switch done to
using `workflow_run` instead of `pull_request_target`. The reason for
that being that we can only mark jobs as required if they are targetting
PRs.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This reverts commit 3a760a157a.
Unfortunately we have to revert the PRs related to the switch done to
using `workflow_run` instead of `pull_request_target`. The reason for
that being that we can only mark jobs as required if they are targetting
PRs.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This reverts commit 7855b43062.
Unfortunately we have to revert the PRs related to the switch done to
using `workflow_run` instead of `pull_request_target`. The reason for
that being that we can only mark jobs as required if they are targetting
PRs.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
As we're using the `workflow_run` event, the checkout action would
pull the **current target branch** instead of the PR one.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
The way previously used to get the PR's commit sha can only be used with
`pull_request*` kind of events.
Let's adapt it to the `workflow_run` now that we're using it.
With this change we ended up dropping the PR number from the tarball
suffix, as that's not straightforward to get and, to be honest, not a
unique differentiator that would justify the effort.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's make this workflow dependent of the commit message check, and only
start it if the commit message check one passes.
As a side effect, this allows us to run this specific workflow using
secrets, without having to rely on `pull_request_target`.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This is less secure than running the PR on `pull_request`, and will
require using an additional `ok-to-test` label to make sure someone
deliverately ran the actions coming from a forked repo.
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
Let's switch to using the `ghcr.io` registry for the k8s CI, as this
will save us some troubles on running the CI with PRs coming from forked
repos.
Fixes: #6587
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This is the very first step to replacing the Jenkins CI, and I've
decided to start with an x86_64 approach only (although easily
expansible for other arches as soon as they're ready to switch), and to
start running our kubernetes tests (now running on AKS).
Fixes: #6541
Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
