ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New TC builds adding process
Date Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:54:16 GMT
Peter, thanks! Looks good.

Dmitriy, I agree with your proposal. Making community aware sounds the most
important thing, especially for "heavy" builds.
And we can omit any approval to avoid unnecessary slowdown of the
development process.

пн, 22 окт. 2018 г. в 10:41, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com>:

> Ivan,
>
>
> Please check dependencies list now.
>
> > On 21 Oct 2018, at 11:39, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ivan,
> >
> > I believe every time any suite is added or significantly reconfigured it
> > should be mentioned in the dev list.
> >
> > So we don't need to approve any change by discussion, but keeping
> community
> > member posted seems to be really helpful here.
> >
> > Currently, I don't know why and which suites were added.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > сб, 20 окт. 2018 г. в 9:25, Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Hi Igniters,
> >>
> >> On Friday I felt a real inconvenience (pain in ass) with running builds
> for
> >> a ticked I worked on [1]. There were two the most frustrating moments:
> >> 1. Estimated build completion time was 11 hours after the start.
> >> 2. There are newly added suites which are failing constantly in recent
> >> runs.
> >>
> >> I compared builds count in RunAll chain for mentioned ticked. On Oct 6
> >> there were 105 builds, and on Oct 19 where were 113. Then I compared
> >> differences and found suspicious items.
> >>
> >> First of all there were 2 Windows suites PlatformNetCoverage [2] and
> >> PlatformCWindowsX86 [3]. Former seems to be something added recently and
> >> latter as I know was decided to be excluded from RunAll some time ago
> but
> >> strangely reappeared. I suspect that these 2 suites could increase build
> >> run time because they are quite lengthy and require Windows slaves which
> >> are in limited amount.
> >>
> >> Also there were 2 rather problematic builds InspectionsAop [4] and
> >> InspectionsCore [5] which seems to fail constantly. Presence of such
> builds
> >> brings a noise into analyzing build results. TC Bot treats them as
> possible
> >> blockers.
> >>
> >> So, here are my suggestions:
> >> 1. A contributor should add new build to RunAll after estimating build
> >> running time impact carefully. If impact is noticeable such builds
> should
> >> be announced and discussed on dev list. It sounds good idea to test
> drive
> >> new heavy build running it on a scheduled basis first before adding to
> >> RunAll.
> >> 2. We should not have constantly failing builds like mentioned
> Inspections.
> >>
> >> What are your thoughts?
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5935
> >> [2]
> >>
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformNetCoverage
> >> [3]
> >>
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformCWindowsX86
> >> [4]
> >>
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsAop
> >> [5]
> >>
> >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>
>
>

-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message