Add Ubuntu 22.04 to libraries CI run

[omajid]

This is to help catch OpenSSL 3.0 issues, like #67304

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-infrastructure-libraries
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is to help catch OpenSSL 3.0 issues, like #67304

Author:	omajid
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-Infrastructure-libraries, community-contribution
Milestone:	-

[danmoseley]

@agocke presumably this is increasing the cost of PR validation. Should we be swapping out a different version, instead?

[omajid]

System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates.Test failures on amd64 and arm64 are expected (#67304). System.Net.Http.Functional.Tests is new to me.

Edit: Filed #67353 for System.Net.Http.Functional.Tests

[danmoseley]

@agocke thoughts?

[ViktorHofer]

ping @dotnet/runtime-infrastructure @agocke for Dan's question above.

[ViktorHofer]

Do we want to continue testing on Ubuntu 21.10 given that 22.04 is added to the matrix and that 21.10 will be EOL in three months (July 2022) before we even release .NET 7?

[omajid]

Dropping 21.10 sounds good to me.

I am a bit surprised that the previous LTS version - 20.04 - isn't already in the test matrix.

[ViktorHofer]

@danmoseley do you remember if we intentionally left 20.04 out when we rehauled our test matrix last year?

[ViktorHofer]

Who would be the best person to ask about ubuntu 20.04? @danmoseley @jkotas

[jkotas]

Our baseline strategy is to test the lowest supported and highest supported versions, and cover the versions in the middle only if we believe that there is a particularly high risk for them. It is why Ubuntu 20.04 may be missing here since it is in the middle.

I agree that Ubuntu 21 should be deleted as part of this change.

Ubuntu 21 should be replaced by Ubuntu 22 for Linux x64 as well (this section is for Linux arm64).

If we believe that Ubuntu 20.04 is a particularly high risk, it should be ok to add it to the extra platform list. I would add it for Linux x64 only.

[ViktorHofer]

I don't see any indication that 20.04 is high risk so I would be fine not including it and dropping 21.10. @omajid does that sound fine?

[omajid]

Yup, makes sense.

22.04 is higher-risk because it's one of the earliest Linux distros that adapted OpenSSL 3.0.

[carlossanlop]

I think it looks good now, @omajid. The latest update made sure to replace the middle versions 21.04 and 21.10 with the latest one, 22.04. Thanks for making the change.

But before merging, I'd like @ViktorHofer and/or @agocke do provide a sign-off too, since they have more expertise than me on this.

[agocke]

So we're swapping out 21.04 for 22.04? I think that's fine.

One thing I'd like to think about is PR vs rolling here. As we start asking questions like, what's the cost of adding this run, I think we have basically an unlimited appetite for adding runs in rolling builds.

We should start trying to make PR our highest value runs and think about moving other stuff out into rolling.

[agocke]

LGTM. I don't see us catching much in 21.04 that we won't catch in 22.04, and SSL 3.0 is a bigger risk category

[omajid]

One thing I'd like to think about is PR vs rolling here. As we start asking questions like, what's the cost of adding this run, I think we have basically an unlimited appetite for adding runs in rolling builds.

Sorry in case this is obvious to others: can you elaborate what "rolling" in this context means? Are these another set of non-PR CI builds?

[ViktorHofer]

Sorry in case this is obvious to others: can you elaborate what "rolling" in this context means? Are these another set of non-PR CI builds?

Rolling builds are ones that are based of the public's main branch which happen twice per day. A PR build usually refers to a build triggered by a PR. An internal/official build is the one that is triggered when a new commit is merged into the internal main's branch.

[omajid]

I have rebased the PR to fix the merge conflicts..

[jkotas]

Thanks!