Skip to content

Conversation

@vashirov
Copy link
Member

@vashirov vashirov commented Feb 5, 2025

Bug Description:
Test execution on older branches (1.4.x, some 2.x) fails. We use the same Fedora base image across all branches, but it contains newer toolchain and doesn't have some build dependencies.

Fix Description:
Use appropriate images: EL8 for 1.4.x, EL9 for 2.x, EL10/Fedora for 3.x.

Fixes: #6583

Bug Description:
Test execution on older branches (1.4.x, some 2.x) fails. We use the
same Fedora base image across all branches, but it contains newer
toolchain and doesn't have some build dependencies.

Fix Description:
Use appropriate images: EL8 for 1.4.x, EL9 for 2.x, EL10/Fedora for 3.x.

Fixes: 389ds#6583
@vashirov vashirov marked this pull request as draft February 5, 2025 20:02
@vashirov
Copy link
Member Author

vashirov commented Feb 7, 2025

@mreynolds389, @droideck, I see the following error during the build:

make[1]: Entering directory '/__w/389-ds-base/389-ds-base/src/cockpit/389-console'
npm run build && cp -r dist cockpit_dist

> 389-console@1.0.0 build
> webpack

ERROR in 
/__w/389-ds-base/389-ds-base/src/cockpit/389-console/src/ds.jsx
  480:40  error  '_' is not defined  no-undef

✖ 1 problem (1 error, 0 warnings)

It doesn't happen on more recent branches, I vaguely remember this was related to one of the npm packages. Maybe you know?

@droideck
Copy link
Member

droideck commented Feb 7, 2025

It doesn't happen on more recent branches, I vaguely remember this was related to one of the npm packages. Maybe you know?

Yeah, it's related to this commit - 098b6c8#diff-e4cb41551d17bd6c01381a4fe5aa014144db65516bef010a0151b0ce065b68cfR40

While doing backports, I touched only the branches we release - 1.4.3, 2.2-3.0.

For 2.1 and 2.0, there are so many missing commits that the current UI version produces A LOT of conflicts... (first for builder backport, then for localization and then for PF5)

@vashirov
Copy link
Member Author

vashirov commented Feb 7, 2025

Makes sense 👍
I'll drop PRs for 2.0, 2.1 then. Perhaps we should mark these branches as protected to avoid pushing backports there since we no longer maintain them.

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