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

Skip to content

CI Improvements #3975

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 1, 2016
Merged

CI Improvements #3975

merged 4 commits into from
Nov 1, 2016

Conversation

pks-t
Copy link
Member

@pks-t pks-t commented Oct 28, 2016

Just realized our Coverity builds were not running for nearly three months. Seems as if Coverity did change the download URLs for their build tools. I've fixed these and re-added a check so that we only let Coverity analyze our master branch.

I also removed valgrind from the allowed failures. I didn't spot any failures from valgrinds in the last builds, so I'd argue its a good thing to do to notice new failures. I'd also like to disallow failures for Coverity, but unfortunately the build is still too unstable due to quotas and occasional problems with downloading their toolset.

pks-t added 2 commits October 28, 2016 14:45
We used to only execute Coverity analysis on the 'development'
branch before commit 998f001 (Refine build limitation,
2014-01-15), which refined Coverity build limitations. While we
do not really use the 'development' branch anymore, it does
still make sense to only analyze a single branch, as otherwise
Coverity might get confused.

Re-establish the restriction such that we only analyze libgit2's
'master' branch. Also fix the message announcing why we do not
actually analyze a certain build.
@carlosmn
Copy link
Member

The main reason for allowing valgrind runs to fail is so that travis can report back with success before they're done, as they take considerably more to run than the others.

@pks-t
Copy link
Member Author

pks-t commented Oct 28, 2016

Does this really make sense though? I mean when you take this particular build, the macOS builds are still two minutes slower compared to the valgrind builds (11 minutes for valgrind, 13 minutes for macOS). So there's not much to be gained by this, actually.

pks-t added 2 commits October 31, 2016 16:01
When running a Coverity build, we have to provide an
authentication token in order to proof that we are actually
allowed to run analysis in the name of a certain project. As this
token should be secret, it is only set on the main repository, so
when we were requested to run the Coverity script on another
repository we do error out. But in fact we do also error out if
the Coverity analysis should _not_ be run if there is no
authentication token provided.

Fix the issue by only checking for the authentication token after
determining if analysis is indeed requested.
Our valgrind jobs haven't been failing for several builds by now.
This indicates that our tests are sufficiently stable when
running under valgrind. As such, any failures reported by
valgrind become interesting to us and shouldn't be ignored when
causing a build to fail.

Remove the valgrind job from the list of allowed failures.
@pks-t pks-t force-pushed the pks/ci-improvements branch from a4b1082 to 0334bf4 Compare October 31, 2016 15:01
@pks-t
Copy link
Member Author

pks-t commented Oct 31, 2016

Just realized that we're also producing an errored job because of a missing Coverity authentication token if Coverity is actually not going to run. Added another commit fixing this issue.

@carlosmn
Copy link
Member

carlosmn commented Nov 1, 2016

The Mac build wasn't always this slow. But I noticed on a different project that Travis won't send the "green" message until the whole build is complete anyway, so it's probably fine.

We're not doing a lot in the valgrind build anyway, since we've no code to fail in case valgrind detects new leaks.

@carlosmn carlosmn merged commit 41ad9eb into libgit2:master Nov 1, 2016
@pks-t pks-t deleted the pks/ci-improvements branch November 14, 2016 09:33
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.

2 participants