The documentation for the process by which arcade-services can be verified isn't really clear. We should improve this documentation. Specifically I am looking for:
/fyi @sunandabalu @mjanecke
Not expecting you to do this, just a heads up that this appears to be a gap in our arcade-services verification and deployment process.
/cc @ChadNedzlek @riarenas
I think we probably need another cluster rather than let private branches stomp all over int. For arcade-services that shouldn't be too expensive (we don't need a ton of pools of machines behind them), and it would help keep the int environment from getting broken in case someone's PR makes stateful (and irreversable) changes.
I also think we should take the opportunity and bring up pre-production cluster in preparation for your and the TLS changes going out. I am not confident at the moment that they will roll out seamlessly.
pre-production might be the right answer - but I'd also like to discuss this more first.
Pre-production specifically to guard against the changes that would be rolled out in the next iteration. The deployment process changed quite a bit and there were quite a few commits that did not roll out properly (in fact it's still broken because of the the intermediate commits managed to put it in a bad state: #4356)
/cc @sunandabalu to manage.
Documentation complete. Closing.
Most helpful comment
I think we probably need another cluster rather than let private branches stomp all over int. For arcade-services that shouldn't be too expensive (we don't need a ton of pools of machines behind them), and it would help keep the int environment from getting broken in case someone's PR makes stateful (and irreversable) changes.