-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
[Release] Update version to 9.0.5 #8978
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod
wants to merge
6
commits into
9.0
Choose a base branch
from
update-version-next-9.0.5
base: 9.0
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ce83d04
[Release] update version
elasticmachine b4930db
ci: pin agent CI version to 9.0.4
pkoutsovasilis dc7ea0a
chore: bump versions
pkoutsovasilis cdb4875
Merge branch '9.0' into update-version-next-9.0.5
pkoutsovasilis d2dd286
fix: render helm chart examples
pkoutsovasilis 3b45a3c
Merge branch '9.0' into update-version-next-9.0.5
pkoutsovasilis File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@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?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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-hooksThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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 🙂.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See #9038 and #9039