►
From YouTube: Meshery CI Meeting (July 8th, 2021)
Description
Meshery CI Meeting - July t8h, 2021
Join the community at https://layer5.io/community
Find Layer5 on:
GitHub: https://github.com/layer5io
Twitter: https://twitter.com/layer5
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/layer5
Docker Hub: https://hub.docker.com/u/layer5/
A
A
So
if
you
see
there
are
24
open
with
a
ci
specification
in
the
title,
so
there
are
a
lot
of
work
to
do
and
if
you
want
to
contribute
to
the
cia
team,
please
see
all
these
issues
and
try
to
to
pick
one.
If
you
need
help,
you
can
pick
me
on
the
slack
or
in
the
channel,
and
I
can
help
you
and
right
now
I
am.
I
have
three
issues
assigned,
but
I
this
weekend
I
will
be
working
on
this
one
on
this
graph
and
setup
with
cyprus.
A
A
Okay
thanks.
The
second
topic
today
for
today
is
the
apple
request
that
was
requiring
a
a
review.
I
think
this
merge,
this
pull
request
is
already
merged,
so
yeah
and
thanks
push
for
this
pull
request.
It
helps
a
lot.
A
B
Foreign
like
if
we
are
running
tests
with
an
exis
existing
profile
and
then
we
are
trying
to
run
tests
with
existing
profile,
but
passing
a
url,
a
new
url
with
the
flag.
Url
then
like
we
are
trying
out
if
we
aren't
passing
proper
protocol
with
the
url
and
then
there
is
with
like
we
want
to
create
a
new
profile
while
running
with
our
new
url,
and
we
are
not
passing
the
protocol
like
https
with
the
url.
B
Then
like
we
are
trying
to
create
a
profile,
but
we
are
not
passing
the
url,
which
is
not
a
valid
case,
because
a
profile
always
needs
a
url
to
store
on
the
backend
side,
when
we
are
trying
new
profile
with
an
invalid
url,
something
like
that,
it
is
not
an
url.
It's
just
some
random
keyword,
so
we
are
trying
out
those
cases.
B
Then
we
are
trying
similar
with
existing
profile
with
an
invalid
url.
Okay,
so
these
were
cases
of
our
necessities
apply.
When
we
are
trying
to
run
performance
tests,
then
there
is
another
command
that
is
view.
So
these
are
the
cases,
view
profile
view
result,
and
then
we
are
trying
to
view
profile.
But
token
is
an
invalid
token.
B
We
are
trying
to
see
results
and
then
we
have
tried
like
searching
for
a
profile
that
doesn't
exist
on
the
backend.
What
should
be
the
output
for
that?
So
these
are
the
cases
for
unit
tests.
B
One
thing
that
was
like
implemented
in
this
that
before
this
pr,
I'm
not
sure
where
okay,
so
what
was
it
that
we
had
unit
tests
under
measuring
slash
unit
tests
and
we
in
this
pr
that
didn't
trigger
like
that
github
action
wasn't
triggered
because
the
all
the
changes
were
in
missouri
ctl.
So
I
checked
it
and
I
found
that
the
those
that
github
action
was
only
working
outside
of
the
message
ctl
folder,
but
we
wanted,
like
all
the
tests
to
go
for
all
kind
of
changes,
all
kind
of
tests
in
the
project.
B
A
B
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
the
next
thing.
That
is
also
real
to
me.
So
this
is
something
that
has
been
like
being
facing.
People
are
facing
it
a
lot
during
recent
times
that
is
like
when
we
run
message,
ctl
version
we
get
client
not
set,
get
sha
not
set.
Why
is
this
happening?
This
is
happening
because
of
my
own
pr,
a
previous
vr
that
has
been
merged
before
so
should
I
explain
why
it
is
exactly
happening,
or
should
I
just
directly
jump
to
the
solution
for
it.
A
B
Okay,
so
we
actually
set
mystery
ctl
version
in
the
comment.
Sha
and
all
the
other
flags
like
this,
like
it's
ldf
flags,
I'm
not
sure
what
this
term
is,
but
we
set
it
up
like
this
github.com
nationally
measuring
message:
ctl,
internal
and
root,
dot
version
is
equal
to
get
version
then
get
comment
sha
and
similarly
the
release
channel
okay.
But
what
like
break
the
broke?
This
thing
is
that
we
have
replaced
github.com
layer
5
with
measuring.
B
B
Should
I
like?
I
should
show
it
to
you.
I
think
that's
a
better
explanation
there
and
it
turned
out
longer.
A
B
Is
okay,
so
we
have
all
these
like
these
packages
on
our
local
and
we
set
it
up
with
the
help
of
this
line.
So
previously
it
was
like
easier
to
set
it
up,
but
now
we
have
shifted
our
project
to
measuring
slash
machinery,
and
but
the
imports
are
still
there.
Five
five,
I
use
slash
measuring
github
kind
of
manages
it
on
the
backend,
but
our
file
system
cannot
understand
what
going
on
what
is
going
on
here.
C
Ph
just
just
an
info:
basically,
if
you
go
to
go
dot,
mod
of
measuring
it's
mentioned
as
layer,
5
io,
slash
measuring.
So
if
you
can
go
back
to
the
go.mod
file.
C
Yeah,
so
this
is
the
reason
why
the
packaging
is
not
pointing
to
measuring
slash
measuring,
but
it
sticks
to
layer,
five
ios
last
machine
like
this
is
the
root
reason.
Why
even
in
your
file
system,
it's
getting
cloned
in
that
path.
B
C
I
think
we
are
okay
because
changing
that
will
require
changing
import
parts
in
each
and
every
file
so
and
we
don't
get
anything
better
out
of
it.
So
I
think
it's
okay.
For
now.
A
A
A
B
B
There
have
to
be
some
updates
in
the
utility
in
order
to
achieve
this
running
checks
and
prs
and
support
for
other
components,
it
would
be
like
other
components.
We
run
the
utility
on
it
and
create
full
requests
here.
So
a
call
for
volunteers
should
be
made
on
that
tomorrow,
and
support
for
mystery.
Ctl
is
still
to
be.
I
mean
missouri.
Ctl
does
not
use
this
in
new
era
codes
right
now,
so
not
sure
about
this,
and
this
vr
is
more
about
support
for
mystery
server.
B
B
Basically,
I
have
demoed
it
a
few
times
and
there
are
some
new
changes.
It
only
runs
when
there
are
changes
to
go
files
and
this
new
access
token,
which
was
not
here
earlier,
a
little
bit
more
reliable
thing
or
command
to
update
the
docs
here
and
yes.
So,
basically,
I
think
this
vr
should
be
up
for
review
until
and
unless
we
want
to
include
this
in
this
pr
as
well.
B
A
B
Yes,
we
want
to,
we
are
not.
We
haven't
done
anything
to
do
that
right
now,
because
that
would
be
when
the
utility
gets
an
update
to
set
the
exit
code
to
zero.
I
mean
non-zero,
so.
B
A
B
Yep,
so
this
is
I'm
not
sure
about
it.
This
is
rather
a
question,
and
so
basically
the
thing
which
is
happening
is
when
contributors
are
creating
full
requests
for
new
mesquite
errors.
They
are
getting
merge
conflicts
because
all
of
them
modify
the
two
files,
necessarily
the
json
files,
so
that's
causing
some
large
conflicts
and
it's
not
a
good
contributor,
as
well
as
a
maintainer
experience
to
troubleshooting
them
so
can
can
we
do
something
on
the
ci
to
fix
this?
B
A
C
Yeah,
so
so
so,
basically,
I'm
also
a
little
bit
dull
on
this
area.
But
what
I
can
suggest
here
is
that,
since
the
recommendation
everything
changes
when
we
run
the
error
utility,
we
can
actually
not
have
the
user
run
the
error
utility,
but
run
it
only
in
the
ci
and
update
it
like
how
what
it
suggested.
I
guess
I
think
this
is
the
same
thing:
yeah
cool,
so
yeah,
that's
one
step
where
you
can
sort
of
avoid
moist
conflicts.
While
you
know
npr.
A
Okay,
I
see
so,
do
you
mean
that
run
this
utility
on
only
on
ci
and
not
in
our
computers,
right,
yeah,
okay
and
in
order
to
avoid
modifying
ourselves.
I
am
thinking
about
that.
Adding
those
files
in
the
git
ignore,
but
I
don't
know
if,
if
that
is
or
maybe
if
we
modify
those
files,
we
only
need
not
to
upload
those
files,
because
if
I
create
a
pull
request
and
I
modify
the
error
codes,
I
should
not
upload
those
files
right.
B
Like
the
json
file,
so
you
were
talking
about
the
json
files
that
are
produced
by
the
error
utility
right.
C
C
B
A
A
For
example,
the
wordfallsci
only
will
modify
those
files
and
we
as
contributors
will
we
only
pull
those
files
without
modifying
because
they
are
in
the
right.
A
Yeah
that
could
be
a
solution.
Maybe
we
can
write
this
proposal
in
slack
to
track
michael
in
order
to
to
to
receive
feedback
from
him.
B
Yep,
so
this
is,
this
is
simply
the
pr
that
I
displayed.
First,
there
are
some
checks
that
are
getting
triggered
and
I'm
not
sure
if
they
should,
because
these
are
probably
tests
and
checks
for
go
code,
but
this
vr
does
not
modify
any
go
code.
B
C
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
I
think-
and
that
was
the
the
topics
in
the
list
that
we
wrote,
do
anyone
ask
anything
else
to
us.
E
Yeah
like
whenever
we
are
like
writing
a
new
function
so
like
like,
for
instance,
if
two
people
are
working
on
the
same
part
like
if
we
are
writing
us
like
two
functions
in
the
same
in
in
code
whenever
we
are
just
like,
for
instance,
if
the
first
pr
gets
merged,
then
they
are
same
like
there
is
a
conflict
for
the
second
person
for.
E
If
you
have
written
a
code
like,
for
example,
okay,
I
will
show
you
something
which
I
mentioned
today
in
the
morning.
A
E
A
E
That
same
one,
the
error,
folder
I
got
to-
I
got
the
answer
about
those
json
files
like
how
do
we
solve
the
concrete
for
the
json
file?
But
how
do
we
solve
if
the
error
comes
in
this
error?
Dot
group
file
like
for
like
in
this
file?
We
get
a
lot
of
conflicts
whenever
one
pr
gets
one.
So
how
do
we
solve
this
problem?.
A
Yeah
that
that
is
the
proposal
solution
that
we
said
before
that.
Maybe
we
can
ignore
these
files
by
git
and
only
be
modified
by
the
ci
workflows
in
order
to
avoid
conflicts
about
this,
I
think
one.
In
the
meantime,
we
can
not
commit
these
changes
of
these
files.
So
if
you
are
creating
a
pull
request
that
change
the
error
codes,
I
think
we
can
not
commit
those
files
and
preserve
the
the
option
files.
E
C
Okay,
in
this
case,
basically,
we
will
have
like
there
will.
The
the
the
merge
conflicts
are
basically
inevitable
and
we
will
need
to
include
in
either
of
the
case
like
whenever
a
merged
conflict
happens
in
a
dot.
Go
we'll
just
have
to
blindly
accept
both
the
changes
and
then
commit
it.
Basically,
you
don't
have
to
like
go
line
by
line
to
check
which
to
include
and
which
do
not.
It's
always
just
include
both
the
changes
from
master
branch
as
well
as
yours,.
A
Okay.
Okay,
I
see
I
I
need
to
read
more
about
this
in
order
to
understand
it,
but
do
you
have
a
proposal
solution
for
this
problem?
I
would
check.
C
It's
no
as
in
this
is
this
does
not
have
a
finite
solution.
Is
what
I'm
saying
the
quickest
way
where
you
can
get
rid
of
this
issue
would
be
that
whenever
you
get
a
merge
conflict
happens,
you
just
have
to
accept
both
the
incoming
change,
as
well
as
your
current
change
in
the
merge
conflict,
and
that
is
to
be
done
blindly
like
it
will
never
cause
any
issue.
A
Okay,
I
see
I
see
yeah.
I
will
see
the
explanation
and
the
issue
of
that
in
order
to
to
have
more
context,
but
let
me
put
it
in
the
agenda
in
order
to
to
to
keep
that
in
tracking
a
saiyan.
So
thanks
for
bringing
up
this
topic
and
what
what
did?
What
was
the
number
of
the
pull
requests?
I
don't
remember.
A
A
C
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we
are
done
for
today.
We,
you
have
30
minutes
free
today,
so
I
just
and
share
with
you
the
pull
request
number
in
the
last
repeat
that
we
discussed
with
and
say
yeah,
so
in
the
next
meeting.
I
will
be
talking
about
that.
So
thanks
everyone
for
attending
to
this
meeting
and
have
a
good
day,
yeah
thanks
everyone
thanks
everyone
to
you.