+1

On 2024/05/22 09:20:19 Alex Porcelli wrote:
> +1
> 
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 5:09 AM Jan Šťastný <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > Luckily the github actions workflows are defined within each respective
> > repository, so it's fully under the developers controls to configure what
> > is run and how (I assume a profile or system-property needs to be set).
> >
> > For tests results, I find it also kinda blurry when it comes to reviewing
> > test results in GHA, but one example PR:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes/actions/runs/9186543090?pr=3523
> > 1. See Annotations section which lists the failed tests
> > 2. See the JUnit Test Report in the bottom of the summary page.
> >
> > I see that the missing part is a log portion relevant to a particular
> > example, but it should be part of a surefire/failsafe report so can be
> > perhaps also populated somehow.
> >
> > Important thing to note is that current Jenkins PR checks due to Github
> > Source Branch Jenkins plugin limitations and long execution times run sort
> > of a compile downstream build, running tests only for target repository of
> > the PR and for upstream/downstream repositories it runs just quick
> > compilation. And there's not an easy way to achieve splitting of the PR
> > checks as is the case in GHA that would reduce the time to run and more
> > flexible rerunning (of a subset of builds).
> >
> > Regards
> > Jan
> >
> > On Wed, 22 May 2024 at 10:55, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jan,
> > > I have seen Jenkins check failing while GHA worked.
> > > The Jenkins failure that was not reported by GHA (at least the one I can
> > > recall right none, but others cannot be excluded) was a format issue (I
> > > forgot to format one of the modified classes)
> > > So maybe worth to include a format check to ensure the same that happened
> > > to me that not happens to other (format can be interpreted as a picky
> > > thing, but my experience in v7 told me is important because the final
> > > result is a code with erratic tabbing and import policy that cause a bad
> > > impression to newcomers)
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:47 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Most Apache project that I’m involved in use GitHub actions for testing
> > > > the PRs and only use Jenkins for deploying of Snapshots and running
> > tests
> > > > that GitHub doesn’t allow us to run.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Von: Enrique Gonzalez Martinez <[email protected]>
> > > > Datum: Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2024 um 10:34
> > > > An: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > > > Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] Abandon PR checks in Jenkins
> > > > Hi Jan,
> > > >
> > > > What is the impact for the projects ? One of my concerns is related to
> > > > test outcome publications. Right now github actions are a bit
> > > > cumbersome.
> > > > Can you elaborate a bit regarding the impact ?
> > > >
> > > > El mié, 22 may 2024 a las 10:00, Jan Šťastný (<[email protected]>)
> > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > Due to our technical debt in Jenkins PR checks and repeated problems
> > > with
> > > > > execution times and long waiting queues, I'd like to propose dropping
> > > > > Jenkins PR checks for repositories where we have an equivalent
> > > > alternative
> > > > > in GHA PR checks.
> > > > >
> > > > > That applies most probably to:
> > > > > - incubator-kie-drools
> > > > > - incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes
> > > > > - incubator-kie-kogito-apps
> > > > > - incubator-kie-kogito-examples
> > > > > - incubator-kie-optaplanner
> > > > > - incubator-kie-optaplanner-quickstarts
> > > > >
> > > > > The assumption is to do a cross-check for each repository whether the
> > > > scope
> > > > > of PR checks is equivalent, but generally I am positive GHA actions
> > are
> > > > > already superior in terms of flexibility and scope.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to