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

staging gitlab needs more runners #654

Open
scottwittenburg opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

staging gitlab needs more runners #654

scottwittenburg opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Collaborator

Pushing develop -ish spack to staging a bit ago reminded me we don't have the same runners available in both, you can see the child pipelines that are stuck because of it here.

I don't think we're going to be able to get complete parity in runners between production and staging, so @danlamanna, @kwryankrattiger, and I have been trying to think of ways to gracefully handle when staging doesn't have the same runners. Some points to consider:

  • we shouldn't need to change the spack codebase to push to staging and test there
  • it's not clear whether the "stand-in" jobs when we don't have runners should pass or fail
    • on one hand, we may want to pass so subsequent jobs run (exercise the pipeline functionality as far as possible)
    • on the other hand, subsequent jobs may rely on artifacts/results of previous jobs
@kwryankrattiger
Copy link
Collaborator

One possibility is to create a runner type that has the extraneous tags we need to emulate but cannot support (A100/M100/-gpu/-cray/etc.) and inject a pre-build script that somehow makes CI look like it passed or, possibly, always generate nothing to rebuild.

This could be setting the prune-depth to prune everything or ci rebuild to just early exit status 0 with a message "Skipped" or something else like that.

I am unsure if the pre-build script persists it's environment to the before_script/script sections so possibly that is not an option.

We could also just set special environment variables on the project, but I think that may be too heavy handed for the level of control we would want for testing.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants