Skip to content

Conversation

jprestop
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull Request Testing

  • Describe testing already performed for these changes:

    Ensured GitHub actions built and pushed the images

  • Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:

    Review the files changed.
    The image names are dtcenter/met-base:minimum_v0.1 and dtcenter/met-base:unit_test_v0.1 here.

  • Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [There is currently no documentation... ]

  • Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes, but the MET build off this image will be tested later.]

  • Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [N/A]

    If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:

  • Please complete this pull request review by [20220829, if possible].

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

  • Review the source issue metadata (required labels, projects, and milestone).
  • Complete the PR definition above.
  • Ensure the PR title matches the feature or bugfix branch name.
  • Define the PR metadata, as permissions allow.
    Select: Reviewer(s)
    Select: Organization level software support Project or Repository level development cycle Project
    Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes
  • After submitting the PR, select Development issue with the original issue number.
  • After the PR is approved, merge your changes. If permissions do not allow this, request that the reviewer do the merge.
  • Close the linked issue and delete your feature or bugfix branch from GitHub.

@jprestop jprestop added this to the MET 11.0.0 milestone Aug 26, 2022
@JohnHalleyGotway
Copy link
Collaborator

JohnHalleyGotway commented Aug 26, 2022

@jprestop that's great that you and @georgemccabe made such great progress. Here are a couple thoughts to consider:

  1. You've defined a milestone here named "MET 11.0.0". I propose that you instead define 2 milestones, named "METbaseimage 0.1" and "METbaseimage 1.0". This initial work is being done for the "METbaseimage 0.1" milestone. While this relates to "MET 11.0.0", we're versioning this separate from MET.
  2. The GHA is pushing images named:
    dtcenter/met-base:minimum_v0.1 and dtcenter/met-base:unit_test_v0.1
    In my opinion, I see that as an opportunity to simplify things a bit and would prefer them to be named:
    dtcenter/met-base:v0.1 and dtcenter/met-base-unit-test:v0.1

I know we'll have to modify the Dockerfiles in the MET repo, but we have to do that anyway to at least add "v0.1". Generally speaking, I think putting only the version number in the image tag name is preferable to stuffing more info in there (e.g. "minimum" vs "unit_test"). Might as well just stash the 2 different image types in 2 different DockerHub repos.

@jprestop
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@JohnHalleyGotway Thanks for the suggestions! The changes have been made, with the exception of the milestone "METbaseimage 0.1" because we will delete that tag and create a new tag "METbaseimage 1.0" which is really what we want. Please re-review, then after approval we will merge and re-tag.

Copy link
Collaborator

@JohnHalleyGotway JohnHalleyGotway left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These changes look great to me. I approve.

Thanks!

@jprestop jprestop merged commit 114254a into main Aug 30, 2022
@jprestop jprestop deleted the feature_1_init branch August 30, 2022 14:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add initial files to create the MET compilation environment in the dtcenter/met-base Docker image
2 participants