Hi @nicoche. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a containerd member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 8m 06s (non-voting)

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 8m 20s (non-voting)

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 50m 16s (non-voting)

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 5m 44s (non-voting)

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 5m 41s (non-voting)

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 5m 39s (non-voting)

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 5m 41s (non-voting)

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 5m 40s (non-voting)

If I'm not mistaken, this looks like the expected behavior:

$cat /etc/containerd/config.toml | grep -A 2 metrics
[metrics]
  address = "127.0.0.1:4242"
  grpc_histogram = false
$ curl localhost:4242/v1/metrics 2>1 | grep build_info
# HELP containerd_build_info_total Build information on containerd
# TYPE containerd_build_info_total counter
containerd_build_info_total{revision="1df428b2ff31749bf5309f1544e1f0bb552866e3",version="v1.5.0-beta.2-13-g1df428b2f"} 1

If a test doing just that is needed please let me know. I'll gladly add it

(not a containerd reviewer or maintainer)

If a test doing just that is needed please let me know. I'll gladly add it

If there's a way to add either e2e or unit testing w the CR, that's generally a plus!

It may also help engaging on the issue to clarify an API path. For instance, would we want to expose this info at /about ?

@nicoche Looks good to me. Is it still work-in-progress? Derek has changed the title though.

@kzys I think we're good as is. I just rebased

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : SUCCESS in 4m 48s (non-voting)
• containerd-test-arm64 : SUCCESS in 5m 36s (non-voting)
• containerd-integration-test-arm64 : SUCCESS in 21m 43s (non-voting)

Some tests failed but I don't think they are related to this PR, are they?

/ok-to-test

@nicoche Could you rebase the branch against main? This will re-run the tests.

Build succeeded.

• containerd-build-arm64 : NODE_FAILURE in 0s (non-voting)
• containerd-test-arm64 : NODE_FAILURE in 0s (non-voting)
• containerd-integration-test-arm64 : NODE_FAILURE in 0s (non-voting)

Thanks, just did it! Still one test failing, but it could be a true positive. I'll look into that

Looks like this is an external issue as other PRs run into the same crash. Example here: #5676 (comment)

I'll re-run the tests in a while to see if things are better 🙂

/retest

@containerd/committers Can someone approve GitHub Actions?

/retest

    default:     failed to pull image: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to pull and unpack image "docker.io/library/busybox:1.28": failed to copy: httpReadSeeker: failed open: unexpected status code https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/library/busybox/manifests/sha256:141c253bc4c3fd0a201d32dc1f493bcf3fff003b6df416dea4f41046e0f37d47: 429 Too Many Requests - Server message: toomanyrequests: You have reached your pull rate limit. You may increase the limit by authenticating and upgrading: https://www.docker.com/increase-rate-limit

Looks also like a flaky one... Unfortunately I don't think I can relaunch tests myself @kzys, I'll need your help once again 🙏 Actually they are running!

And they passed 🎉

Thanks @nicoche! The change has been merged as #5965 with a slight change from @crosbymichael.

Looks way cleaner like this, thanks!