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

CI jobs for readable-stream group #782

Closed
gibfahn opened this issue Jul 6, 2017 · 13 comments
Closed

CI jobs for readable-stream group #782

gibfahn opened this issue Jul 6, 2017 · 13 comments

Comments

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Jul 6, 2017

Setting up initial jobs for readable-stream WG in #657

I'll create a streams-admins group following our process. That group will have edit access, streams will have run access.

@nodejs/build let me know if there are any objections.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member Author

gibfahn commented Jul 6, 2017

cc/ @piccoloaiutante @nodejs/streams

@piccoloaiutante
Copy link
Member

excellent, go ahead 👍

@gibfahn gibfahn self-assigned this Jul 6, 2017
@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented Jul 6, 2017

+1

@piccoloaiutante
Copy link
Member

@gibfahn let me know if you need any help on this

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member Author

gibfahn commented Jul 13, 2017

Created the streams-admins team and added @mcollina and @calvinmetcalf (and made both maintainers).

I don't know enough about the WG to know who else will be active in maintaining Jenkins jobs. If anyone else should be added comment in this thread.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member Author

gibfahn commented Jul 13, 2017

Gave the two teams the appropriate access to readable-stream-continuous-integration, @mcollina please confirm you still have configure access.

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

It is all working. I removed some unneeded machines and the ones that suffer from #785.

Some things that I would like fixed:

  • some sort of aggregated test results, so that we know what failed across the environments, currently it reports no result
  • we need to be able to trigger this for all the Node.js versions at the same time, ideally from 0.8 to 8, and maybe even the latest nightly, can you help set that up as well?
  • can we post the status of the build to github as well?

Overall it works very well, I had to fix a configuration on our side. If you want to test, use the core-ci branch (nodejs/readable-stream#308).

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member Author

gibfahn commented Jul 20, 2017

Looks like @nodejs/streams didn't have build access (@nodejs/streams-admins did have edit access) because it's actually @nodejs/Streams with a capital S. Github lowercases everything, but the plugin doesn't. I've given both permutations (streams and Streams) access.


we need to be able to trigger this for all the Node.js versions at the same time, ideally from 0.8 to 8, and maybe even the latest nightly, can you help set that up as well?

What I've been doing for other projects is adding a pipeline that runs the job with a list of versions, current job is here: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/All/job/readable-stream-pipeline/. It doesn't do anything magical, it just splits the NODE_VERSIONs string by space, and spawns a job with each NODE_VERSION.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member Author

gibfahn commented Jul 20, 2017

BTW, if you want to add or remove platforms you modify the MACHINE label expression. If you want to run on a subset of platforms as a one off you modify the MACHINES parameter.

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

mcollina commented Jul 20, 2017

How can we have some form of aggregated test results for each platform and some reporting for the pipeline?

My jenkins fu is extremely bad and out-of-date :(.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member Author

gibfahn commented Jul 20, 2017

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I'm still working through your other requests!

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

thanks @gibfahn!

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Mar 22, 2019

Closing due to long period of inactivity. Feel free to re-open if this is a thing. I'm just trying to close stuff that has been ignored for sufficiently long that it seems likely it's not something we're going to get to.

@Trott Trott closed this as completed Mar 22, 2019
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

6 participants