On 2021-01-20 06:48, David Holmes wrote:
On 19/01/2021 11:48 pm, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2021-01-19 00:13, David Holmes wrote:
Hard-wiring build numbers seems a maintenance PITA. :( Is there not
a way to do this that is independent of the actual build installed?
I agree that hard-wiring numbers in the code is bad. However, having
explicit version numbers for our dependencies is good. That is the
philosophy behind jib, and it has served us well. We should look at
finding a way to store the actual versioon numbers outside the
submit.yml file, though.
I think this is a bit different to the way we use jib to manage our
own build environment.
But what do you mean by "independent of the actual build installed"?
We have AFAIK no control over what toolkit versions are installed for
Github actions, so they could change at any time. We update today to
request 14.28 and tomorrow they replace 14.28 with 14.29 and our
builds fail again even though they would likely be perfectly fine on
14.29. To me if we just were able to say "Use latest VS 14.x" then
that would suffice most of the time. Occasionally we could hit an
issue where our sources are not yet compatible with the latest VS but
hopefully that is less frequent than the frequency these VS builds
change.
I think that depends on how we view the GHA testing, which still is not
clear. Or rather, each OpenJDK developer seem to have their own opinion
on this, and no official guidelines to help us.
I think we need to make the most effort we can to control the GHA
environment. That means requesting a specific version of VS, and having
a fail-fast if that is not available. That way, we get to know when GHA
environment changes.
Which is how things work today.
Would it not also be good to add a check for the existence of the
build that we do hard-wire? That way the problem will be very clear
next time.
It would be fantastic! Please tell me how to to that in the limited,
brain-dead Github Actions environment. :-(
If we put those hard-wired version/build numbers into a file readable
by configure, then couldn't configure check it?
So just to be clear: configure *did* check for the existence of VS, and
it did not find it, and thus it aborted and complained. So we did have
this fail-fast functionality. But since the GHA environment contained a
half-broken, half-working installation of the VS version in question,
the error message from configure was not really clear.
This PR was about updating the version of VS required by the GHA build
script. Unfortunately, I think it's not possible to either:
1) move the version number to a separate configuration file, instead of
hard-coding it in the yaml source
2) have the submit.yml GHA script check for the availability of the
specific version of VS before launching configure.
but it might be just my limited knowledge about the system. If it were
possible, I think we should do both.
/Magnus
Cheers,
David
/Magnus
Cheers,
David
-------------
Commit messages:
- 8259679: GitHub actions should use MSVC 14.28
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2126/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=2126&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8259679
Stats: 2 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 2 mod
Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2126.diff
Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk
pull/2126/head:pull/2126
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2126
