-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
Build and test in a matrix #286
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
Build and test in a matrix #286
Conversation
b3132ab
to
a8b6b8b
Compare
To catch the #282, we would need to also run the tests on this target. |
a8b6b8b
to
e0c4cfc
Compare
In this case, to be precise we don't actually need to run tests we just need to compile them. I think we don't need to strictly I've updated the matrix job and it's clearly visible it's not just that particular 32bit target that was failing. To be honest I'd move the |
I've cherry-picked your commits from the other PR... let's see how many tests will be green now :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds like all of them were fixed :)
I like the idea of running on the whole matrix. It makes it easier to catch all possible oddness (but really the most common one is the ulong size which demonstrates on 32b arches). The linux-x86_64 is missing though.
On the other hand, I would probably be interested in running the test on 32b arch too (can be separate PR based on what I did in #283). We can probably do it easily only on i386 though. We might get the arm64 runner as mentioned in #285 and we might be able to run there the arm32 binaries, but I never played around this and I an skeptical it will show other errors than the i386 ones.
Okay, I've simplified it further: noticed that we're checking formatting twice (once in a job, second time in See if this looks any better and thanks for review! 👋 Btw, we won't be able to merge this anyway until @hug-dev changes the definition of "Required" checks (they're hardcoded for now to look for old jobs). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good!
b5e4eb7
to
9151453
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yooohooo amazing job! Looks much better than our ci.sh
script! Definitely in favour of removing it if we can do everything from the yaml file :) Maintaining a big shell file is not fun...
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
9151453
to
c4f2c3e
Compare
Modified the branch protection rules to remove the old check. I however need to manually add all matrix variations in the branch protection rules (that is 38 checks). There are some way around but they do not look too good. Shall I manually add all of them as required or do we only require a subset? |
Yes, this is super annoying and I didn't find a satisfactory workaround (also in my other repos that have dozens of checks), gee GitHub, can't we just say "select them all"? :-/
I think a subset would be fine (and no worse than what we had previously) but of course ideally we would want to have them all... well, I always wait for the full CI before hitting approve anyway 😅 |
We are using the "dummy" job , that will depend on the whole matrix (can be referenced by just the name in the yaml and that can be "required" in the gui to pass in other project and it does not look that bad: https://github.com/ansible/pylibssh/blob/devel/.github/workflows/ci-cd.yml#L1427 |
Signed-off-by: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <[email protected]>
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice! Added the new check in the required workflows :)
No description provided.