On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:12 PM Johannes Hoppe <i...@johanneshoppe.com> wrote:
> @Tom, I stared to adapt some of your suggestions. Not done yet, I need to > wait for more log output from PostgeSQL to identify why it's stuck. > > I'll put in more work later today (UTC+9). I'll also open up a > pull-request somewhere to allow line wise comments and suggestions. > > @Matematica, good points, I added some comments inline. > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 09:42 Matemática A3K <matematica....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:31 AM Johannes Hoppe <i...@johanneshoppe.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hey Tom, >>> >>> Good to hear for you and very good points. I'll leave you a couple of >>> inline comments: >>> >>> On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:04:50 AM UTC+9, Tom Forbes wrote: >>>> >>>> This is fantastic! Thank you Johannes! Regarding sqlite MacOS and >>>> Windows tests, this is historical AFAIK (we don’t have the resources). With >>>> this we should test MacOS and Windows as part of the Sqlite matrix (i.e all >>>> python versions). >>>> >>>> A few notes: >>>> >>>> 1. We need to change the test runner output to be verbose when running >>>> inside actions, as GitHub actions uses line buffered output. >>>> >>> Yes, 100% >>> >>>> >>>> 2. We can’t run Oracle in actions for a number of reasons. We could >>>> consider exposing the test database instance to Github actions via a proxy >>>> or a whitelisted IP address, and we could implement the current “Buildbot, >>>> test on oracle” command in GitHub actions pretty trivially. >>>> >>> You could use the official docker image, but it's going to be painfully >>> slow. >>> >>>> >>>> 3. We should have separate stages for Chrome and Firefox, but Firefox >>>> should be set to allow failures for now. We can use the selenium hub >>>> feature of the test runner in combination with the “services” actions >>>> option to make this a bit simpler. >>>> >>> We currently use borwserhub on our CI system, if I am not mistaken. So >>> using the headless version, was just a PoC. We should connect it to >>> browserhub too I guess. >>> >> >> Browserhub == Browserstack == Selenium hub? If so, there should be the 3, >> with Chrome and Firefox the main focus, and if some device fails in the >> Selenium hub it wouldn't be a merge-blocker. >> > I don't remember which one, but I don't want to toy with the current > setup. The headless once are good for a regular CI setup and could run on > each PR, since they are fast and more reliable. > > I split them (in my sample branch) and disabled fast failing. So it's > easier to identify browser specific issues. > >> >> >>> >>>> 4. Regarding the databases, I think the more correct way would be to >>>> use a “service” rather than apt-installing it. See here for example: >>>> https://github.com/actions/example-services/blob/master/.github/workflows/postgres-service.yml#L20-L30. >>>> This would enable us to test the matrix of database versions, which is as >>>> important as python versions IMO. >>>> >>> I am not sure if this is really the best move. I decided against >>> "services" on other projects, mainly because of performance reasons. My >>> current understanding is, that the containers are executed inside the >>> virtual machine. Besides that you are stuck with stock images. In the case >>> of Postgres, you will not get any extensions, like PostGIS. >>> Then again, we should try and verify if any of my points are valid. >>> >> >> According to >> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/virtual-environments-for-github-hosted-runners, >> you can run Docker containers besides the stock images >> > True, I missed that. Hm... We should definitely do a side by side. The > service config sure looks cleaner. > Then why not use all the work already done in django-docker-box there? Then this would be "Run Django CI with Docker in the Azure cloud via Github Actions instead of Jenkins via the Jenkins-Github integration (plugin?)" > >> >>> >>>> 5. Developers hate duplication, but I think a readable CI definition >>>> that includes duplication is better than a de-duplicated one that’s a mess >>>> of YAML anchors and special cases (see my attempts in docker-box!). I might >>>> even suggest a separate actions file per test-group (linting/each >>>> database/selenium). >>>> >>> Hm... I think I undestand where you want to go with this, but will >>> having separate files really avoid duplication? Anyhow, a file has a >>> meaning. It is a workflow. You can have multiple jobs in a workflow. Jobs >>> can depend on one anohter, but only if they belong to the same workflow. So >>> you can't build stages across workflows. Therefore, I would stick with a >>> single file approach and wait until GitHub fully supports YAML. >>> It's not that much duplication and steps cloud be bundled using another >>> strategy, but I won't go for that just now. >>> >> >> Seems reasonable to me also, conditional and stages functionality is more >> important in this case. >> > I agree, after some more thought, it also makes sense to me, to have a > single CI workflow. It also looks better, in terms of user feedback on > GitHub. > >> >> >>> >>>> However for now I propose this as a course of action: >>>> >>>> 1. We add Flake8, isort and docs to the main Github repository >>>> (basically this: >>>> https://github.com/codingjoe/django/blob/30962/flake8/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L1-L31). >>>> I think this is good to go as-is and is low risk. We leave this running in >>>> parallel with Jenkins for a period of time to evaluate it, and after that >>>> we remove those Jenkins jobs entirely when we are happy. >>>> >>> >>> Me likey! >>> >>>> >>>> 2. We add SQLite tests one at a time: first Ubuntu, then Windows and >>>> finally MacOS. We can experiment with these in separate repositories if >>>> needed until we are happy with the configuration. After this we should >>>> become comfortable with developing CI changes as merge requests, and should >>>> not need separate repositories. >>>> >>> We can also use the Sqlite definitions as a template for future >>>> databases. We also need to add specific test settings files to the >>>> repository, even for SQlite which needs memcached configured (see >>>> django-docker-box for examples). >>>> >>> MacOS fails right now. On my local machine too, we should really test >>> aginst it. But it will require fixing some tests. >>> >>>> >>>> 3. We add a full-matrix MariaDB build. This is our newest supported >>>> database and there have been a few failures on master on specific untested >>>> versions. >>>> >>> Yes, please I need a helping hand here. I'm a Postgres kind a guy. >>> >>>> >>>> 4. We then add each database individually in a similar fashion, and >>>> think about Oracle right at the end. >>>> >>> Poor Oracle, but I absolutely agree. >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> If this plan sounds reasonable then let's create some smaller tickets. >>>> IMO the exact specifics of how the database tests will look is still fuzzy, >>>> but for the linting it’s perfectly clear. However if anyone is not happy >>>> with actions in the main repository then let's keep discussing. >>>> >>> It does, but let's wait just a bit longer. I'd like others to evaluate >>> the new insides. I'm sure they have some good idea too. >>> >> >> The plan sounds right to me, taking away the linting from Jenkins would >> alleviate a bit the overload on it and not hit the capacity limit. >> > I slept a night on that. I believe we should run the actions back to back > with the current config for a while and exclude it from any branch > restrictions. Having it run back to back allows for a better comparison. > > I would also not limit it to just the linters. If we have a config that > works and that mirrors a current test run, we should deploy it to gain more > experience. > > If we name the workflow something like BETA or DO-IGNORE, it also won't > cause too much confusion, to have two sets of tests. But on that I'd like > to hear an opinion from our fellows. > >> >> As it seems that it will take some time to evaluate it, why don't we VC >> the Jenkins config in the meantime to help Mariusz? >> >> >>> >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 Nov 2019, at 15:33, Johannes Hoppe <in...@johanneshoppe.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok, I have one more insight. >>>> >>>> I added all databases (except Oracle) and altered the job matrix to >>>> reflect the current setup (why don't we test on macOS again?) >>>> Results can be found here: >>>> https://github.com/codingjoe/django/commit/386f5eb04dc0ae9424bcb1e1198ed7752cd9c10c/checks?check_suite_id=300325315 >>>> >>>> My main observations: >>>> 1. PostgreSQL is still running after 1.5h >>>> 2. I have no clue about MySQL or MariaDB >>>> >>>> Since PostgreSQL is sill running I looked into the machine size that is >>>> used for the GitHub hosted runners. They use Azure's Standard_DS2_v2 >>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/sizes-general#dsv2-series >>>> >>>> I believe if we are to run Oracle (or PostgreSQL for that matter) we >>>> might need to use our own action runners. However, if we ask Microsoft >>>> very, very nicely, maybe they will sponsor some bigger machines for us ;) >>>> >>>> BTW, PostgreSQL is running for almost 2h now. I wonder if I could run a >>>> major web service of a GitHub action :P >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:15:43 PM UTC+9, Johannes Hoppe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I put in a little effort and tried a couple of conceptual things. >>>>> 1. YAML anchors, inheritance and includes are not yet supported by >>>>> GitHub actions. >>>>> 2. You can build dependent builds, or build stages, but you will need >>>>> to keep everything in one file. (This gets messy without anchors & co). >>>>> 3. You can give your jobs proper names and it works wonderful with a >>>>> matrix too. >>>>> 4. You can add lots of OS dependent steps (or other dependencies) to >>>>> avoid duplication. >>>>> 5. Fast failing is defined per job. So if a job inside a matrix fails, >>>>> only runners in the same matrix will be killed. Further more, jobs that >>>>> depend on this job will not be started. However, other will. (Very >>>>> powerful >>>>> stuff, love it.) >>>>> >>>>> I put all my work and results into a branch. Here's what I implemented: >>>>> 1. flake8, isort >>>>> 2. sqlite3 all OSxPythonv versions >>>>> 3. PostgreSQL >>>>> 4. PostGIS >>>>> 5. Selenium (headless) FF & Chrome (flaky as ever :/ ) >>>>> >>>>> Here is the config file: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/codingjoe/django/blob/30962/flake8/.github/workflows/ci.yml >>>>> >>>>> The output is here: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/codingjoe/django/commit/7a6fe4d7956caa6fb9a1ffe190310f48df031190/checks?check_suite_id=300072254 >>>>> >>>>> I use sphinx and libenchant on GH-actions in other projects, but I >>>>> need to check out the sphinx is build in our current CI setup first. >>>>> I'll try to draft a solution for that too. >>>>> >>>>> So far I am pretty happy. I haven't encountered anything that isn't >>>>> possible yet. Concurrency is also great. >>>>> Regarding speed, I haven't looked much into caching yet, and I am not >>>>> sure it's a big time saver, since Django doesn't have many dependencies. >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:44:00 PM UTC+9, Johannes Hoppe >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> @Florian, dependent builds or build stages are possible, seealso: >>>>>> https://github.com/codingjoe/django/commit/eeefc83a85ba5e91b98c4e29fb9b20896612cc8c/checks?check_suite_id=299641652 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Johannes Hoppe >>>>>> >>>>>> www.johanneshoppe.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Want to chat? Let's get a coffee! >>>>>> https://calendly.com/codingjoe/call >>>>>> >>>>>> Lennéstr. 19 >>>>>> 14469 Potsdam >>>>>> >>>>>> USt-IdNr.: DE284754038 >>>>>> On 7. Nov 2019, 10:16 +0900, Tom Forbes <t...@tomforb.es>, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe this discussion is slightly off topic, and at the risk of >>>>>> derailing things I’d like to put out my view on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is more to it than just “using Github’s computing power”, just >>>>>> as there is more to using AWS than “using Amazon’s computing power”. >>>>>> That’s >>>>>> only a small part of it: it’s also the ecosystem, the integrations, the >>>>>> maintenance cost, the *ease of use*, the support, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Django’s “core business” is Django. Time and resources that are spent >>>>>> not focusing on improving that should be reduced. Keeping Jenkins alive >>>>>> and >>>>>> stable seems like a waste to me. Something similar could be said about >>>>>> flake8 vs black. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jenkins is actually a really interesting and unique piece of >>>>>> technology, far more interesting than most people realize. But who cares >>>>>> because we don’t need interesting. We need to run “pip install flake8 && >>>>>> flake8” on every commit and show the results in Github. That’s a solved >>>>>> problem thanks to Travis, CircleCI, actions or even Gitlab-CI with 0 >>>>>> effort >>>>>> from us. >>>>>> >>>>>> So IMO it shouldn’t matter at all if Jenkins is open or closed >>>>>> source. Time is, as always, our fiat and the expenditure of it is what >>>>>> counts. To that end I would honestly avoid self hosting runners, there >>>>>> are >>>>>> some easier alternatives we can try first to support Oracle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, I will make the flake8 merge request tomorrow and we can see >>>>>> where we go from there. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Nov 2019, at 01:10, Matemática A3K <matema...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:51 AM Carlton Gibson <carlto...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey Shai. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 08:43:21 UTC+1, Shai Berger wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there benefit enough in GitHub Actions (over Jenkins) to justify >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> move from an open-source based solution? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think we have to move away entirely but it would be good to >>>>>>> bring in something else... (or at least try it...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These are the top on my mind reasons for wanting to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Mariusz spends Quite a lot of time™ maintaining Jenkins and all >>>>>>> the job definitions etc. This doesn't go away with another builder but >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> we can move to declarative config file in the repo, then that could >>>>>>> become >>>>>>> shared work. (Jenkins has this these days no...? But we don't...) >>>>>>> * I'd really like to try GitHub actions Windows builds. Maybe we >>>>>>> could get Jenkins to behave better but currently we have a failure on >>>>>>> every >>>>>>> force push. >>>>>>> * Maybe we can stage runs: i.e. do the lint, and some basic builds >>>>>>> first. Do one Python against each DB before running then all. And so >>>>>>> on, to >>>>>>> save some trees. (Again maybe we might be able to do this with Jenkins >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> it seems more likely to actually happen if we give GitHub Actions a >>>>>>> trial.) >>>>>>> * I think we're running up against capacity for the sponsored space, >>>>>>> so builds slow down. If we can spread the load we should get faster CI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carlton >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I also share Shai's concerns. Thinking a bit about it, it is about >>>>>> depending on other's resources for the workflow. Nothing in Django >>>>>> changes, >>>>>> as all the tests are the same and can be ran with tox - and all the >>>>>> source >>>>>> code is the same - the difference would be using Github's computing power >>>>>> instead of Jenkin's for leveraging resources (i.e. manpower) which are >>>>>> not >>>>>> infinite. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be ideal - to me - to have the entire workflow depending on >>>>>> FOSS solutions. I guess this was one of the reasons that Jenkins was >>>>>> chosen >>>>>> instead, say, Travis, but if the health of Django improves with this, the >>>>>> overall impact to the the community will be better than staying being >>>>>> users >>>>>> of a project which we don't contribute (at least to my knowledge): almost >>>>>> nothing changes to Jenkins - well, it starts loosing users over Github, I >>>>>> think the same may happen with Gitlab - and Django gets an improvement >>>>>> because is already dependent on Github. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be also an alarm to Jenkins in the way that it needs to >>>>>> catch up with others, if Github Actions end up providing the same >>>>>> functionality with a lower setup and maintainability effort, the might >>>>>> migrate there. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you use others' servers like in SaaS, there is no way but >>>>>> trusting the other to "behave as expected", even using the AGPL. As long >>>>>> as >>>>>> it a conscious decision, seems good to me :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e509afbc-21ea-4b3b-9e23-18718594fa49%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e509afbc-21ea-4b3b-9e23-18718594fa49%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CA%2BFDnh%2BTMwfRNTWQiK_gtFjJ-A4wTLsSofv_DV3hPgqcmU7D_g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CA%2BFDnh%2BTMwfRNTWQiK_gtFjJ-A4wTLsSofv_DV3hPgqcmU7D_g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>> the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" >>>>>> group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/xDCmZPLTOQQ/unsubscribe >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/60D608A7-2902-42A2-A2A7-E4EA8395DA07%40tomforb.es >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/60D608A7-2902-42A2-A2A7-E4EA8395DA07%40tomforb.es?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/a499aadf-1cd7-4000-b7a1-8ef4bca39364%40googlegroups.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/a499aadf-1cd7-4000-b7a1-8ef4bca39364%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/a3e81cca-e658-4b73-80ba-48fd92ef697c%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/a3e81cca-e658-4b73-80ba-48fd92ef697c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/xDCmZPLTOQQ/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CA%2BFDnhJ7xchX2%3DcEQVx4XCUTv_KcxMJrpyO_%2BQwhH3TrCt7vwQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CA%2BFDnhJ7xchX2%3DcEQVx4XCUTv_KcxMJrpyO_%2BQwhH3TrCt7vwQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAPcC2onP%2BKt0U0fr5w-U5ZnPq74PioDFD6xFnkzquAV%3DsyhoZA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAPcC2onP%2BKt0U0fr5w-U5ZnPq74PioDFD6xFnkzquAV%3DsyhoZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CA%2BFDnhJ_W67Z77fazZtQ9D0FHrFVbxfdo6%3D9t6_sPthwYH_3BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
