-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Artefacts conflating snap revisions from multiple channels based on version strings #100
Comments
One way to group snaps, as employed by snapcraft.io release pages, are builds ids: $ yq '."image-info"' /snap/ubuntu-frame/current/snap/manifest.yaml {
"build-request-id": "lp-85100538",
"build-request-timestamp": "2024-01-05T20:15:48Z",
"build_url": "https://launchpad.net/~mir-team/+snap/ubuntu-frame-22-edge/+build/2346943"
} If present, these could take precedence over version strings. |
This is actually how Test Observer is currently designed. A snap artefact is unique based on the combination of name, version and track. Under a snap artefact there is one artefact build per architecture. This build is the latest revision seen for the specific architecture for this artefact (name, version and track combination). If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting snap artefacts to be uniquely identified using name, track and |
Yeah but that's the thing - it merges runs for Using |
snap artefact unique identifier is "snap-name + snap revision id". In kernel team, "version" is never unique (as it is human readable version of the kernel portion of the snap only), and the same "version" is rebuild multiple times to stage updated initrd, updated firmware, updated packaging. Thus kernel team for all kernel snaps requires results by snap revision id, not version. Especially when we do security resnap of existing kernel versions, with updated security releases of firmware files. |
Steps:
v1.0
onbeta
v1.0
onedge
Expected:
beta
Current:
beta
Snap version strings are only meant to be human readable (contrary to debs). Test observer should not consider revisions not released to certain channels as part of the same artefact solely based on their version string. The channel on which the revision was published needs to be considered as well.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: