Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@oscargus
Copy link
Contributor

@oscargus oscargus commented May 31, 2025

Closes #4708
Closes #4709

Move 3.14-test to experimental.

I realised that we can just run two tests in the same file, so no need to duplicate all the skip-stuff. Also this gives a better dependency chain for the deployment.

Added cancel-in-progress: true to stop old test runs after pushing to the same branch again (quite useful for me at least, who tend to push before I think...)

Also added so that all the changed workflows executes on pull-requests. Will remove that once it is confirmed that it works by someone with correct bits.

I do not think the failing tests are caused by this PR?

@oscargus oscargus marked this pull request as ready for review May 31, 2025 10:40
@oscargus oscargus force-pushed the cifixes branch 4 times, most recently from 12f9b43 to c21f99f Compare May 31, 2025 11:18
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 31, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 77.11%. Comparing base (dd6ee95) to head (f24b28f).
⚠️ Report is 253 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4711      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.23%   77.11%   +9.88%     
==========================================
  Files          59       59              
  Lines        8503     8527      +24     
  Branches     2067     2071       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         5717     6576     +859     
+ Misses       2362     1474     -888     
- Partials      424      477      +53     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ktbarrett
Copy link
Member

The icarus v12 build tends to hang so we have it timeout after 5 minutes. It's a common failure you just need to re-run it.

Skipping simulation as VHDL is not supported on simulator=vcs.

Lmao, so we are testing that it doesn't work? I think something got missed and we didn't realize because it's in the experimental bucket. Not your problem.

Copy link
Member

@ktbarrett ktbarrett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good.

name: Release

concurrency:
group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.event.number }}-${{ github.event.ref }}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a reason to use ${{ github.event.number }}-${{ github.event.ref }} instead of ${{ github.ref }} like the docs mention?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure. I copied it from Matplotlib.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It was added in matplotlib/matplotlib#22919 but no comments why this particular version was added. Maybe it was the recommended way then?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well if it's still working for them we can leave it and see if there's any weird discrepancies in the future.

@ktbarrett ktbarrett added this to the 2.0 milestone May 31, 2025
@imphil
Copy link
Member

imphil commented Jun 1, 2025

Looks like there is more fallout from #4682 to be fixed:

  • Add the "licensed" group to the comment at the top of generate-envs.py.
  • "licensed" is a bit an unfortunate name, it's not different from CI, it's a subset of the CI tasks (e.g., the extended tests also have licensed simulators in them). Make sure to at least explain that properly in the comment.

@oscargus
Copy link
Contributor Author

oscargus commented Jun 2, 2025

Should I rename them in some way? ci-opensource and ci-licensed?

@ktbarrett
Copy link
Member

If so maybe ci-free and ci-licensed. Shorter and Free is not necessarily Open Source.

@oscargus
Copy link
Contributor Author

oscargus commented Jun 2, 2025

If this works, I think everything is handled. (If not, I'll be at it tomorrow.)

What tests belong in what groups:
- ci: The most recent stable release of a given simulator, all supported versions of Python, and all supported operating systems. Run on all PRs and master pushes.
- ci-free: The most recent stable release of a given free simulator, all supported versions of Python, and all supported operating systems. Run on all PRs and master pushes.
- ci-licensed: The most recent stable release of a given licensed simulator, all supported versions of Python, and all supported operating systems. Run on all PRs and master pushes in the cocotb repo, but are skipped in forks.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- ci-licensed: The most recent stable release of a given licensed simulator, all supported versions of Python, and all supported operating systems. Run on all PRs and master pushes in the cocotb repo, but are skipped in forks.
- ci-licensed: The most recent stable release of a given licensed simulator. Run on all PRs and master pushes in the cocotb repo, but are skipped in forks.

@ktbarrett
Copy link
Member

ktbarrett commented Jun 2, 2025

Well Questa license server is down. I'll try rerunning the tests in an hour.

EDIT: No need, my other PR failed. It's down.

@oscargus oscargus force-pushed the cifixes branch 2 times, most recently from dbf1127 to e67f46f Compare June 3, 2025 12:31
@oscargus
Copy link
Contributor Author

oscargus commented Jun 3, 2025

Update with the rewording. Also reverted a search-and-replace change in .pre-commit-config.yml that shouldn't have been there.

Copy link
Member

@ktbarrett ktbarrett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's good, but I want to ensure Questa checks work before merging. That may or may not be done any time soon.

@imphil
Copy link
Member

imphil commented Jun 25, 2025

Questa tests are rerunning now.

@ktbarrett ktbarrett merged commit f4a2cd0 into cocotb:master Jun 25, 2025
54 of 57 checks passed
@oscargus oscargus deleted the cifixes branch June 25, 2025 22:08
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Release package not being tested against licensed simulators Python 3.14 release package regression failing

3 participants