continuum-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Roussel" <contin...@diroussel.xsmail.com>
Subject Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:01:14 GMT
It's a bit of a hack, but you can see earlier posts in this list for how
to force a build with no changes, but it won't honour your dependency. 
BTW it just uses curl and cron.

As for the bug in 1.0.3, I think only bugs in 1.1-alpha are being fixed
by the commiters, so your best bet is to test on 1.1.  Not great.

BTW, you can do all this stuff in luntbuild.

David

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:29:21 +0200, "Erik Ruisma"
<feniksenator@gmail.com> said:
> Indeed we use continuum 1.0.3.
> 
> Ok we now got them running seperately, BUT only the first build is
> actually
> executed, the second build does not start as there are no changes in CVS.
> Is there any way to force a build even if there are no changes? In fact
> what
> I really want is that the second build is only executed if the first
> build
> has been launched.
> 
> So scheduling two builds for the same project at the same time does not
> work, I believe that's a bug.
> 
> On 4/3/07, David Roussel <dave@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I take it you've got them to run ok separately?   Do then run ok when
> > not scheduled together?
> >
> > Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
> >
> >
> > On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
> > > However this seems to create some new problems.
> > > So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
> > > launching the
> > > tests, one creating and deploying the site.
> > >
> > > We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
> > > actually runs.
> > > Why ?
> > > I can find the following in our logs:
> > > INFO   | jvm 1    | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> > > [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO  Continuum                      -
> > > Enqueuing
> > > 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
> > > INFO   | jvm 1    | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> > > [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO  Continuum                      -
> > > Enqueuing
> > > 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
> > >
> > > Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
> > > continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
> > > the last
> > > element from the queue remains?
> > >
> > > What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
> > > complex, I
> > > don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
> > > definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
> > > to be also
> > > an issue...?
> > >
> > >
> > > Any feedback welcome.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, David Roussel <continuum@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them.  The
> > >> second build to just do the site.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
> > >> <feniksenator@gmail.com> said:
> > >> > Hello all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
> > >> but I
> > >> > thought
> > >> > to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
> > >> >
> > >> > In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
> > >> generated,
> > >> and
> > >> > artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
> > >> there are
> > >> > some
> > >> > unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
> > >> there are
> > >> > test
> > >> > failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
> > >> during
> > >> > the
> > >> > build.
> > >> >
> > >> > How would you set this up ?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >

Mime
View raw message