nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CI / Travis / Jenkins
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2017 04:31:56 GMT
Great news!  So for the first time in a long time we now have
travis-ci builds passing!

I incorporated Dustin's PR which changed to the -Ddir-only instead of
-P, added Andre's idea of dropping the -quiet flag, and dropped the
number of builds in the config to a single parallel build with contrib
check now that we're seeing those pass with rat/checkstyle.

https://travis-ci.org/apache/nifi/builds/311660398

A couple failed due to test failures and I filed JIRAs to convert
these into integration tests or resolve.
 -https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4660,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4659

One actually finished as you can see in its raw log but travis seems
to have gotten confused.

Two passed completely.  I think to reduce strain on Travis-CI
infrastructure we should drop two of the environments.

Current it is in .travis.yml

env:
  - USER_LANGUAGE=en USER_REGION=US'
  - USER_LANGUAGE=fr USER_REGION=FR'
  - USER_LANGUAGE=ja USER_REGION=JP'
  - USER_LANGUAGE=pt USER_REGION=BR'
  - USER_LANGUAGE=default USER_REGION=default

I think we should drop it to

env:
  - USER_LANGUAGE=en USER_REGION=US'
  - USER_LANGUAGE=fr USER_REGION=FR'
  - USER_LANGUAGE=ja USER_REGION=JP'

If no objections i'll do that soon.  But, good news is the builds are
coming back to life on Travis-CI and will help streamline review
cycles again!

Thanks

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
> nope. will take a look at this tonight though.
>
> On Dec 4, 2017 8:09 PM, "Andre" <andre-lists@fucs.org> wrote:
>>
>> Joe & Joey,
>>
>> I believe setting the maven compilation job to noisy - instead of the
>> current quiet setting - should help solving the issue.
>>
>> Have we tried that?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> On 5 Dec 2017 6:26 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree this would be extremely nice to get back on track.  The
>> changes made last night/today to the poms do appear to mean that
>> parallel builds with contrib-check are working.  Perhaps that helps us
>> a little with travis (or not).  I have reviewed a couple PRs though
>> recently that did not even compile much less have clean contrib-checks
>> so it is really nice to have Travis being more reliable.  Does anyone
>> have any sense of the current reasons for issues?  When I've looked
>> the errors made no sense at all.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Joey Frazee <joey.frazee@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I’m sure everyone has noticed that Travis CI fails, incorrectly, more
>> than it succeeds, often due to timeouts and not b/c of the incorrectness
>> of
>> a commit or PR.
>> >
>> > This has been discussed previously, but it’s carried on, and become a
>> > low
>> information signal about the PRs, which has two big impacts: (1) it’s
>> ignored by experienced contributors and reviewers, and (2) it’s confusing
>> or misleading to new contributors.
>> >
>> > So, we really need to find a solution. I can think of a few:
>> >
>> > 1. Continue to push on INFRA to setup Jenkins for NiFi and its
>> sub-projects.
>> >
>> > 2. Implement some kind of quick-test profile and shell script that
>> > checks
>> the most important things along with the subdirectories affected by the
>> PR,
>> and continue to use Travis CI.
>> >
>> > 3. Use some other service like Circle CI or Codeship, which probably
>> isn’t quite what ASF wants but it might make the CI more useful (it also
>> might not).
>> >
>> > 4. Find a sponsor to support a more premium tier of Travis CI (or
>> > equiv.)
>> so the build has enough resources to to succeed. This too probably isn’t
>> preferable but I’m sure we can find a precedent.
>> >
>> > I’m partial to pursuing (1) and (2) together because (1) would give us a
>> long term solution and (2) would have some value for local builds (no need
>> to run the full build) as well as making Travis CI tell us something. The
>> first should be pretty low effort. The second will be labor intensive I
>> think — to identify what counts as quick and change the poms — so it can’t
>> be the answer on its own unless we want to wait longer to see Travis CI
>> become informative.
>> >
>> > What do the rest of you think?
>> >
>> > -joey

Mime
View raw message