removed build_utils dependency from ceph build pull request job#2398
removed build_utils dependency from ceph build pull request job#2398Adarsha1999 wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
e623748 to
a898d32
Compare
| elif command -v python2.7 > /dev/null; then | ||
| virtualenv -p python2.7 $path |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know youre copying this from the other script now, but perhaps it's also a good time to drop python2 support entirely. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@phlogistonjohn good catch , yes we can do that. Actually I am also modifying something like I am removing the function keyword to make it POSIX compliant.
a898d32 to
9e5db2d
Compare
|
So I assume we are creating a smaller reusable chunk of code in setup_deps.sh here.
|
|
Hi @dmick , This PR is part of the ongoing refactor of the build_utils.sh script. A few key points: Script Name: I've named the new script setup_deps.sh since it focuses on setting up dependencies and can be reused across other jobs that require similar functionality. Open to suggestions if you have a better name in mind. Function Scope: All functions included in this script are migrated from build_utils.sh. There are no new additions—only modifications such as dropping Python 2 support and ensuring POSIX compliance. Future Use: The goal is to make this script reusable across multiple jobs. We're also working on logically splitting the functions—for example, separating setup-related logic from RHEL-specific build steps. |
|
script name: well, yes, as I said, it seems to be strictly Python dependencies, so I would definitely include that in the name, something like, oh, say, setup_python_deps.sh function movement: yes, but if there's no easy way to get diffs, there's no easy way to review it. Please provide text for review of the transported code. goals: good, but what I meant to try to encourage is looking at future users to see that you're doing things in a way compatible with their use, so that hopefully what changes in future is only the callers, and not the callee here |
9e5db2d to
db6060b
Compare
|
Hello @dmick
|
|
retest |
Signed-off-by: Adarsha Dinda <adarshadinda@Adarshas-MacBook-Pro.local>
db6060b to
bf32bcf
Compare
|
Out of fear of creating a split brain scenario, I still don't think duplicating code is the right answer for this endeavor. e.g.,
|
|
I'm assuming this is only affecting one job because we're attempting to stage one job, and then will shortly follow with the others, but yes, there's a potential for change in only one branch of the duplicated code. It's not ideal. |
Logs - https://jenkins.ceph.com/view/pull-requests/job/adarsha-ceph-build-pull-requests/1/