Skip to content

CI: Move cockpit tests to GCP from RHOS (HMS-10341) - #4720

Merged
regexowl merged 2 commits into
osbuild:mainfrom
tkoscieln:migrate_cockpit_from_rhos_to_gcp
Aug 14, 2026
Merged

CI: Move cockpit tests to GCP from RHOS (HMS-10341)#4720
regexowl merged 2 commits into
osbuild:mainfrom
tkoscieln:migrate_cockpit_from_rhos_to_gcp

Conversation

@tkoscieln

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Migrate RHOS runners to GCP for cockpit gitlab tests.

@tkoscieln tkoscieln changed the title CI: Move cockpit tests to GCP from RHOS CI: Move cockpit tests to GCP from RHOS (HMS-10341) Aug 6, 2026
@tkoscieln
tkoscieln force-pushed the migrate_cockpit_from_rhos_to_gcp branch from 6d33504 to a093557 Compare August 6, 2026 12:36
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 77.83%. Comparing base (999d20e) to head (120f09c).

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4720      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.93%   77.83%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         264      264              
  Lines        7066     7066              
  Branches     2603     2603              
==========================================
- Hits         5507     5500       -7     
- Misses       1460     1472      +12     
+ Partials       99       94       -5     
Flag Coverage Δ
playwright 59.91% <ø> (-0.10%) ⬇️
vitest 72.91% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 3 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Harness.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 999d20e...120f09c. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@tkoscieln
tkoscieln force-pushed the migrate_cockpit_from_rhos_to_gcp branch 5 times, most recently from 8843fdf to e179e12 Compare August 10, 2026 11:48
@tkoscieln
tkoscieln force-pushed the migrate_cockpit_from_rhos_to_gcp branch 4 times, most recently from 69d5e2f to a4a6941 Compare August 14, 2026 09:09
@tkoscieln
tkoscieln force-pushed the migrate_cockpit_from_rhos_to_gcp branch from a4a6941 to 120f09c Compare August 14, 2026 09:45
@tkoscieln
tkoscieln marked this pull request as ready for review August 14, 2026 09:46
@tkoscieln
tkoscieln requested a review from a team as a code owner August 14, 2026 09:46

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey - I've left some high level feedback:

  • Confirm that any job scripts or environment variables that were specific to the RHOS/OpenStack runners (e.g., network config or cloud metadata usage) are still valid or have been updated for the GCP runner environment.
  • Consider whether the expanded matrix (additional Fedora and RHEL versions) should be split into separate jobs or stages if runtime or resource usage becomes an issue on GCP runners.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- Confirm that any job scripts or environment variables that were specific to the RHOS/OpenStack runners (e.g., network config or cloud metadata usage) are still valid or have been updated for the GCP runner environment.
- Consider whether the expanded matrix (additional Fedora and RHEL versions) should be split into separate jobs or stages if runtime or resource usage becomes an issue on GCP runners.

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.

@regexowl regexowl left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look great, let's see what the tests think 🤞

@tkoscieln

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

The tests agree 🚀

@regexowl
regexowl added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 14, 2026
Merged via the queue into osbuild:main with commit 9fecf11 Aug 14, 2026
36 checks passed
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.

2 participants