Use kind and Github actions for CI

[teddyking]

The CI pipeline for projects-operator is currently a concourse pipeline hosted on an internal Pivotal concourse deployment. As we move towards open sourcing the projects-operator, it may make sense to move to a more OSS-friendly CI workflow.

In an ideal world the solution we come up with would be able to successfully run the acceptance test suite, without requiring any external infrastrucutre (as this would require someone to gatekeep the passwords for said infrastructure).

One way I think we could achieve this is by updating the acceptance tests to run against kind, and use the kind Github action for CI workflows.

This would require us to configure the kind cluster for OIDC support, pointing to an openldap server that was itself deployed inside the cluster. I'm not totally sure if this is possible, but I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't be.

I wanted to open this issue to start a discussion before investing too much more time in it. What do y'all think?

[edwardecook]

Following a discussion that @MirahImage and I had previously and a conversation with @gmrodgers, we came to the conclusion that GitHub Actions are slightly to early to be easily used for CI on this repo. The alternative that we could go for is to continue to use concours, to open up the main pipeline to be fully viewable (if not possible to interact with, e.g. trigger) much like https://github.com/concourse/concourse and https://ci.concourse-ci.org/. We would also have to set up a pipeline that triggers on PRs (or one that spins up individual pipelines per PR) but that shouldn't be too much work. If we were worried about nefarious changes being made and auto-triggered on the PR CI we could have some kind of approval system.

What do you think @teddyking?

[teddyking]

Cool that sounds good to me. Out of interested is there a TL;DR of the thinking behind Actions not being up to the job yet?

[edwardecook]

Apologies meant to reply to this sooner, my memory is that the actions around versions were a particular problem. @MirahImage might remember more.

[MirahImage]

Yeah, we couldn't find an action that let us do versioning with a private repo (we need a version for tagging images, among other things). Interestingly, if we make this public, we should be okay, and then we could push forward with github actions.