rec: run daily bulk test on ubicloud

[omoerbeek]

Short description

Get the package from our repo (master branch).
We run both an IPv4 only test and a IPV6 enabled one.

Checklist

I have:

• read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
• compiled this code
• tested this code
• included documentation (including possible behaviour changes)
• documented the code
• added or modified regression test(s)
• added or modified unit test(s)

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12709832768

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 1116 unchanged lines in 27 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.06%) to 64.892%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
pdns/packethandler.cc	1	72.57%
pdns/dnswriter.hh	1	76.6%
pdns/dnsdistdist/dnsdist-doh-common.cc	2	95.09%
pdns/recursordist/test-syncres_cc2.cc	3	88.91%
pdns/misc.hh	3	87.62%
pdns/tsigverifier.cc	3	77.22%
pdns/iputils.cc	3	55.91%
pdns/recursordist/recpacketcache.hh	3	89.55%
modules/gpgsqlbackend/spgsql.cc	3	67.46%
pdns/misc.cc	4	64.45%

Totals
Change from base Build 12679852635:	0.06%
Covered Lines:	126244
Relevant Lines:	163711

---

💛 - Coveralls

[romeroalx]

LGTM! Test run: https://github.com/romeroalx/pdns/actions/runs/12674038149

Do you think this job could be included in the already existing workflow misc-dailies instead of a new one? I do not have a strong opinion about this. Maybe it is because the name is somehow similar. A new workflow as is done in this PR is also fine by me.

[Habbie]

one nit that I can live with. Alexis' comment about misc-dailies makes sense, if only because our total list of workflows is getting quite big.

[Habbie]

this is a bit misnamed. if it is set to 0, the test does not run at all, instead of running on "not ubicloud"

[omoerbeek]

I'll rename and move the code to misc-dailies, although we run the risk this becoming a hotchpot of unrelated workflows that only have in common that they are run daily.

[Habbie]

Ah, no, I just meant the var name. As for moving, I'm torn between "we have too many workflows" and "workflows are a good tool for organising things in a way that makes sense". Thinking about it, I realise another important feature of workflows is that they can be disabled/enabled from the UI. So keeping things a bit separate makes sense.

[omoerbeek]

What would you consider a good name for the var? I'm having trouble naming things...

[Habbie]

UBICLOUD_DAILY_REC_BULKTEST?

[omoerbeek]

Done. I've left the job in the misc-daily workflow. I prefer to do reorg of that some other time.

[romeroalx]

Thanks!

BTW, from the conversation in the PR I thought the variable was going to be renamed: "if it is set to 0, the test does not run at all, instead of running on "not ubicloud""

[omoerbeek]

Thanks!

BTW, from the conversation in the PR I thought the variable was going to be renamed: "if it is set to 0, the test does not run at all, instead of running on "not ubicloud""

Ah, my interpretation was Habbie was talking about the job name....