+1 on GitHub Actions. On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote:
> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and recently it > seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise Edition, > which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the pace and > attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially that > they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get > attention/focus from Github/Microsoft. > > And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible for us > to optimise the experience. > > J. > > > J. > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek < > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One of > the > > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work on > > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github Actions > > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners! > > > > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big advantages: > > - they are Github natives > > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork > automatically > > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc) > > > > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo: > > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542 > > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps successes at > > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The build > > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works. > > > > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any thoughts > > about using it? > > > > Best, > > Tomek > > > > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI (featuring > > > Kamil, my friend). > > > > > > https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far: > > > > > > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily replicate > > the > > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally works, I > > can > > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow project > > for a > > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and once we > > see > > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can switch to > it. > > > > > > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it up ? > > > > > > > > Some details > > > > > > > > - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI + kubernetes - > > > > without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should be > > rather easy > > > > with kind (looking at it next): > > > > - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the > UI/how > > it > > > > is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc: > > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817 > > > > - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still around 35 > > > > minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can play > > with > > > > memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some reasonable > > values now), > > > > I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc > > > > - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) - that > > should > > > > let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each other. > > > > - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built in > retry > > > > mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like that > > > > - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be way > > below > > > > 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations. > > Likely > > > > well below > > > > - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as I > > > > originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication (and > > > > easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle > > multi-staging > > > > builds (cache does not work > > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682). I > > updated > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI > > to > > > > reflect that. > > > > - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can have > > > > reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability (it has > > problems > > > > sometimes) > > > > - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any > > Kubernetes > > > > cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for docker > > engine > > > > might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally > > replicable). > > > > - You can take a look at the current source code in > > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci > > > > - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom builder > > Docker, > > > > simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's mostly > some > > > > cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci yaml > > with > > > > job definitions. > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk < > > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from for PRs > > :). > > > >> > > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it: > > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139 > > > >> J. > > > >> > > > >> Principal Software Engineer > > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> > > > >> > > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk < > > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > >> napisał: > > > >> > > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue about > PRs > > and > > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product > > Management @ > > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough. > > > >>> > > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to > alleviate > > any > > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole system on > > GitLab > > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some time > > (even > > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be able > > to tune > > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of both > > systems. > > > >>> > > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make sure that > > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience (from my > > company) > > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems. However > I > > am > > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am away. I > > would also > > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the project > and > > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy it is > > and how > > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be. > > > >>> > > > >>> J. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła < > > kamil.breg...@polidea.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems - > building > > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch. Currently, > > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our project > > is > > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly. > > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/ > > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In the > > ideal > > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same environment as > > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can > further > > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities. > > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it: > > > >>>> > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will soon > have > > a > > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many > > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design > studio > > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E > > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to build a > > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be > combined. > > I > > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a real > > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be updated > > > >>>> frequently. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have problems > > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the future > > can > > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable infrastructure > > for > > > >>>> the project for a long time. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not pleasant for > > me. > > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I had to > > wait > > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes in a > > week, > > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it over > the > > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on Travis by > my > > > >>>> jobs. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk < > > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Hello Everyone, > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general architecture > of > > the > > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having GitLab > CI > > > >>>> support > > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but before > I > > > >>>> start > > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions on the > > > >>>> proposed > > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend Kamil > who > > > >>>> works at > > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think will > be > > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the proposal - > > we > > > >>>> can > > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some > > consensus > > > >>>> we > > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus as > this > > is > > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly) > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments! > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > J. > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > -- > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk > > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > Engineer > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> Jarek Potiuk > > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > >>> > > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >
