Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Restart/Fix CI tests #481

Open
blapie opened this issue Nov 10, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Restart/Fix CI tests #481

blapie opened this issue Nov 10, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@blapie
Copy link
Collaborator

blapie commented Nov 10, 2023

We do not have access to machines previously used in CI anymore. Therefore, CI is very limited at the moment and only patches improving test coverage will be merged.

#476 adds a layer of CI based on x86 github-hosted runners and visible in Github Actions, non-x86_64 architectures are tested n qemu, x86_64 tested natively. Only ubuntu is used in tests.

This does not cover all tests that Jenkins and AppVeyor used to cover.

Follow up work is expected to make as much use as possible of github-hosted and self-hosted runners in GHA to test more architectures natively, more OSs, more compilers, ...

This is issue tracks this effort.

Note: AppVeyor.yml, Jenkinsfile and travis.yml should be removed on closure.

@blapie
Copy link
Collaborator Author

blapie commented Nov 15, 2023

A roadmap to replace/extend pre-existing CI:

The table of supported environment in README tracks support/compatibility across architectures, os-es and compilers.

@bluescarni
Copy link
Contributor

@blapie If you are interested in fast native CI for aarch64, CircleCI provides it for free for open source projects. I have been using it in several of my projects, e.g.:

https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/bluescarni/heyoka/2861/workflows/66959af0-4648-483f-b9c2-d7cc282508ef/jobs/6580

@blapie
Copy link
Collaborator Author

blapie commented Feb 20, 2024

@bluescarni Thanks for the suggestion! That sounds brilliant. It turns out we have a layer of internal/private CI in which tests are run natively on AArch64 and we were waiting for github to provide its own runners to switch to native aarch64 with GHA.
If it is easy to set we might give that a go, in the meantime? What OS are available? What machine(s) does it run on?

What would be even more helpful is runners for other architectures like PPC, Risc-V, IBM/Z, ... for which we rely solely on qemu for testing. Any insight on that?

In the long run we might even rely on a layer of self hosted runners if github hosted ones are too limited. But I doubt that will include these missing architectures.

@bluescarni
Copy link
Contributor

What OS are available? What machine(s) does it run on?

OS is Ubuntu, the machines are these:

https://circleci.com/docs/using-arm/

IIRC, for open source projects the largest instance available is arm.large, which at 4 cores with 16GB of RAM is fairly good.

CircleCI at the moment provides a rather generous amount of free monthly credits for open source projects (I use it regularly and never got near exhausting the available minutes). Of course, like with any "free" CI provider, conditions could change suddenly and unexpectedly...

What would be even more helpful is runners for other architectures like PPC, Risc-V, IBM/Z, ... for which we rely solely on qemu for testing. Any insight on that?

Travis CI used to have bare metal PPC64 machines in their CI offerings, I used it until a couple of years ago, but I think they do not offer free CI plans any more :(

Another potential option for PPC64 is to request access to a server from OSU Open-Source Labs:

https://osuosl.org/services/powerdev/request_hosting/

I did it and the process was quite smooth. I am not 100% sure they would be ok to host a CI service on their machines... Still, it is quite handy for interactive debugging :)

@blapie
Copy link
Collaborator Author

blapie commented Jun 3, 2024

I updated the roadmap with current progress in CI testing.

Also please review our plan to re-organise the scheduling of workflows, to get more control over the usage of CPU runners. #547

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants