[Release] Update version to 9.0.5

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

Updates references to the new release 9.0.5.

Merge after the release 9.0.4.

[v1v]

Wonder whether this could be done in another PR that targets 9.0.
By doing so, it can be reverted easily through the GH UI when needed, and remove the robots CI team from the review in this PR - as we were not needed in the past.

What do you think?

[pkoutsovasilis]

@v1v this is required to do a bump of the elastic-agent version so we can eventually produce the necessary DRA but maintain the CI green. In the past these PRs were forced merged and resulted in a blocked CI. So what's the issue this env var causes?

[v1v]

My idea is to implement changes in a different location. For instance, I created #9021. While it’s not perfect, it demonstrates that these defaults could be temporarily set within the Go project until DRA is enabled. This approach would eliminate the need for approving such changes in these PRs, achieving the same outcome with less overhead for the CI team, as we are not owners of the other files.

In the draft PR I tested, the changes were made quickly and without extensive analysis. However, I believe it illustrates the desired outcome. We can certainly discuss how to implement the details differently, but the revert will be straightforward and can be easily done in the GitHub UI by clicking on:

And it can be merged before this PR.

[pkoutsovasilis]

@v1v respectfully, but your proposal introduces some significant drawbacks. You’re hardcoding values directly into the codebase, which undermines flexibility and maintainability. The “straightforward revert” you mention doesn’t quite hold up when those values are embedded in Go code, as opposed to being centrally controlled through env vars.

In addition, at least for the moment, the version bump and the pinning are necessary to keep the CI green while we work towards the DRA release. Introducing the pinning in the Go code is actually more challenging, as it requires touching multiple places across the project. Centralising this logic in the pipeline via env vars is not only cleaner but also more maintainable and automation-friendly in the long term.

Avoiding this approach just to reduce CI team review overhead seems like the wrong trade-off.

cc @cmacknz @ebeahan @cachedout @pierrehilbert for visibility and thoughts.

[v1v]

It was indeed a quick 5-minute PR change to implement this functionality elsewhere; however, it is not intended to be a final solution. Instead, we could use some files containing those versions, which would be read by the project, rather than relying on environment variables in the BK pipelines. This approach would allow us, the robots-ci, to move away from the review process related to the FF as we are the CODEOWNERS, see https://github.com/elastic/elastic-agent/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS#L8-L10.

For context, we have not been involved in these steps in the past, so I want to emphasise that we do not want to be blockers.

[cmacknz]

I agree that setting this environment variable once here is by far the simplest and least error prone option, and also that we want to minimize the number of approvals we need during our already convoluted release process. I don't love complicating the implementation to work around the code owner setup but I can emphasize with not wanting to be on the hook for approving these changes all the time.

The best compromise would be figuring out a way to load the environment variable here from a file and set the CODEOWNER separately from that.

I don't think this env section support this, but there is an environment hooks feature meant for secrets that possibly could let us do this https://buildkite.com/docs/pipelines/security/secrets/managing#without-a-secrets-storage-service-exporting-secrets-with-environment-hooks

[pkoutsovasilis]

Sure thing @cmacknz. Until we figure out and agree on a long-term path forward — and you already know I’m “cooking” a hopefully more robust solution — what should we do in the meantime for the version bump releases?

I’m happy to revert the pinning commit from this PR if that’s the preferred approach, and we can go back to force-merging those PRs and risking blocked backports until all DRAs are ready. Just let me know in time so I can clean it up accordingly 🙂.

[v1v]

The best compromise would be figuring out a way to load the environment variable here from a file and set the CODEOWNER separately from that.

See #9038 and #9039

[mergify]

This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏
To fixup this pull request, you can check out it locally. See documentation: https://help.github.com/articles/checking-out-pull-requests-locally/

git fetch upstream
git checkout -b update-version-next-9.0.5 upstream/update-version-next-9.0.5
git merge upstream/9.0
git push upstream update-version-next-9.0.5

[pkoutsovasilis]

I had a sync with @v1v , and we both agree that this manual process of adding of env vars / pinning elastic agent version should not become permanent. I started working on this PR that will automate this process but more importantly the produced PRs by it will reflect correct file-ownership in the PR reviewers. That said, my proposal is just for this time, since these releases are almost upon us, we go with the manual approach; @pierrehilbert @ebeahan you follow what you did before, you wait only for an approval from elastic-agent-control-plane team (eng-prod team is not actually required to review this) and then when the CI is green you merge. Any objections anybody? 🙂

[mergify]

This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏
To fixup this pull request, you can check out it locally. See documentation: https://help.github.com/articles/checking-out-pull-requests-locally/

git fetch upstream
git checkout -b update-version-next-9.0.5 upstream/update-version-next-9.0.5
git merge upstream/9.0
git push upstream update-version-next-9.0.5

[elastic-sonarqube]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube

[elasticmachine]

💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: 3b45a3c

Failed CI Steps

• Unit tests - Windows 10

History

• 💚 Build #24034 succeeded dc7ea0a
• 💔 Build #24024 failed b4930db
• 💔 Build #24006 failed ce83d04

cc @elasticmachine