Sample integration of Eco-CI to Falco Pipelines #3121
Conversation
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
Welcome @ArneTR! It looks like this is your first PR to falcosecurity/falco 🎉 |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ArneTR The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is awesome, thank you!
Question: We created a dedicated repo here: https://github.com/falcosecurity/cncf-green-review-testing perhaps we should expand that repo to be "All Things Green Review"? However, we don't yet have any CI really setup in that repo.
CC @leogr @maxgio92 @LucaGuerra awaiting guidance on how we would like to expand our infra in this regards. Thanks.
adding @FedeDP |
|
Hi @ArneTR, which parts of the CI pipeline this measurement applies to? In any case generally I think that reports that improve the observability around the resource consumption like other reports per CI run I think is right to have them declared in the same repo where the tracked pipelines are declared @incertum. WDYT? |
|
I would vote for the other repo https://github.com/falcosecurity/cncf-green-review-testing as it may end up becoming many new pipelines. Aka keep this repos' CI pipelines scoped to our core falco release and test pipelines. Also the other repo would have faster dev and update cycles as it requires only one approve. |
|
Hey @maxgio92 I have posted the details in the linked issue, but I guess it would have been better to also post them here :) Here it goes:
Eco-CI is integrated here by encapsulating all the steps that are originally done in the Scorecard workflow. By design it cannot capture the boot up of the VM and / or the removal. Eco-CI only starts measuring as the first step of a Github / Gitlab workflow. A bit more details how it works you can find here: https://github.com/green-coding-solutions/eco-ci-energy-estimation I also would like to add that this is mainly a Draft PR to illustrate the concept and advance the discussin in the CNCF TAG ENV group. Happy to extend this PR to a full fledged one though or even move it rather to a different repor where you see a try-out integration of Eco-CI more applicable. |
PR-Test commit for eco-ci
|
Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at it, you'll need to add a 'DCO signoff' to your commits. 📝 Please follow instructions in the contributing guide to update your commits with the DCO Full details of the Developer Certificate of Origin can be found at developercertificate.org. The list of commits missing DCO signoff:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
Adding label Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/milestone TBD |
This is a draft PR to illustrate an integration of an energy / carbon measurement plugin. Discussed in cncf-tags/green-reviews-tooling#55
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area CI