Great news! So for the first time in a long time we now have travis-ci builds passing!
I incorporated Dustin's PR which changed to the -Ddir-only instead of -P, added Andre's idea of dropping the -quiet flag, and dropped the number of builds in the config to a single parallel build with contrib check now that we're seeing those pass with rat/checkstyle. https://travis-ci.org/apache/nifi/builds/311660398 A couple failed due to test failures and I filed JIRAs to convert these into integration tests or resolve. -https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4660, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4659 One actually finished as you can see in its raw log but travis seems to have gotten confused. Two passed completely. I think to reduce strain on Travis-CI infrastructure we should drop two of the environments. Current it is in .travis.yml env: - USER_LANGUAGE=en USER_REGION=US' - USER_LANGUAGE=fr USER_REGION=FR' - USER_LANGUAGE=ja USER_REGION=JP' - USER_LANGUAGE=pt USER_REGION=BR' - USER_LANGUAGE=default USER_REGION=default I think we should drop it to env: - USER_LANGUAGE=en USER_REGION=US' - USER_LANGUAGE=fr USER_REGION=FR' - USER_LANGUAGE=ja USER_REGION=JP' If no objections i'll do that soon. But, good news is the builds are coming back to life on Travis-CI and will help streamline review cycles again! Thanks On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > nope. will take a look at this tonight though. > > On Dec 4, 2017 8:09 PM, "Andre" <andre-li...@fucs.org> wrote: >> >> Joe & Joey, >> >> I believe setting the maven compilation job to noisy - instead of the >> current quiet setting - should help solving the issue. >> >> Have we tried that? >> >> Cheers >> >> >> On 5 Dec 2017 6:26 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I agree this would be extremely nice to get back on track. The >> changes made last night/today to the poms do appear to mean that >> parallel builds with contrib-check are working. Perhaps that helps us >> a little with travis (or not). I have reviewed a couple PRs though >> recently that did not even compile much less have clean contrib-checks >> so it is really nice to have Travis being more reliable. Does anyone >> have any sense of the current reasons for issues? When I've looked >> the errors made no sense at all. >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Joey Frazee <joey.fra...@icloud.com> >> wrote: >> > I’m sure everyone has noticed that Travis CI fails, incorrectly, more >> than it succeeds, often due to timeouts and not b/c of the incorrectness >> of >> a commit or PR. >> > >> > This has been discussed previously, but it’s carried on, and become a >> > low >> information signal about the PRs, which has two big impacts: (1) it’s >> ignored by experienced contributors and reviewers, and (2) it’s confusing >> or misleading to new contributors. >> > >> > So, we really need to find a solution. I can think of a few: >> > >> > 1. Continue to push on INFRA to setup Jenkins for NiFi and its >> sub-projects. >> > >> > 2. Implement some kind of quick-test profile and shell script that >> > checks >> the most important things along with the subdirectories affected by the >> PR, >> and continue to use Travis CI. >> > >> > 3. Use some other service like Circle CI or Codeship, which probably >> isn’t quite what ASF wants but it might make the CI more useful (it also >> might not). >> > >> > 4. Find a sponsor to support a more premium tier of Travis CI (or >> > equiv.) >> so the build has enough resources to to succeed. This too probably isn’t >> preferable but I’m sure we can find a precedent. >> > >> > I’m partial to pursuing (1) and (2) together because (1) would give us a >> long term solution and (2) would have some value for local builds (no need >> to run the full build) as well as making Travis CI tell us something. The >> first should be pretty low effort. The second will be labor intensive I >> think — to identify what counts as quick and change the poms — so it can’t >> be the answer on its own unless we want to wait longer to see Travis CI >> become informative. >> > >> > What do the rest of you think? >> > >> > -joey
