ci: switch example charm integration tests to Concierge k8s preset - #2696
Merged
Conversation
dwilding
force-pushed
the
example-charm-ci-k8s
branch
2 times, most recently
from
August 19, 2026 07:49
ac6b853 to
547ad99
Compare
dwilding
force-pushed
the
example-charm-ci-k8s
branch
from
August 19, 2026 07:51
547ad99 to
87209b5
Compare
tonyandrewmeyer
approved these changes
Aug 20, 2026
tonyandrewmeyer
left a comment
tonyandrewmeyer
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the microk8s->k8s change is the right thing to do in general based on company policy.
The 90 minute timeout to avoid waiting longer if things are stuck seems reasonable to me.
As noted in the line comment, using the custom config shouldn't be needed any more, but I'll clean up all the places in a follow-up.
Thanks!
Comment on lines
+65
to
+69
| # .github/integration/concierge-k8s.yaml mirrors the upstream concierge | ||
| # k8s preset and adds juju.extra-bootstrap-args: `juju bootstrap` | ||
| # regularly fails on slow GHA runners with `unable to contact api server | ||
| # after 60 attempts` because the default --bootstrap-timeout is too short. | ||
| run: sudo concierge prepare -c .github/integration/concierge-k8s.yaml |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is true, however, I since added this to Concierge as well (canonical/concierge#221), so shouldn't be required any more. I'll open a PR to change that, but it can stay in this one and get removed from all the places in the follow-up.
tromai
approved these changes
Aug 20, 2026
tromai
left a comment
tromai
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the fix, and verifying that 90 minutes is the sweet spot.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
The integration tests for our COS-enabled K8s charm (k8s-5-observe) keep failing in CI. For example, https://github.com/canonical/operator/actions/runs/32157684730.
The root cause is an IP range issue with microk8s. See canonical/concierge#251.
This PR switches to Canonical K8s, to match our K8s tutorial. I'm using the same custom
k8sConcierge preset as elsewhere in our CI. Our custom preset allows 30 mins for bootstrap to complete.In addition, I'm setting a 90 min timeout for the whole Concierge job. During testing yesterday, I observed several runs that spun indefinitely - presumably a transient issue with the runner, as the problem didn't appear today. The problem didn't seem to be related to the Concierge preset, so I've set the same timeout for the machine charm job.
Passing run in my fork. The k8s-4-action failure is unrelated; it's related to #2689.