Will try it out for PR https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2319 which is being built under https://travis-ci.org/apache/nifi/builds/312043710
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andre > > Thanks - read through https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1657 > where this was discussed and where the relevant multi-env commit came > in. > > Seems like five environments may be too taxing based on the build > failures I'm observing. I'll cut it down to three > FR > JP > US > For now. We can evaluate if that helps at all and add more back if > things become stable. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Andre <andre-li...@fucs.org> wrote: >> Joe, >> >> Glad to help! Few notes: >> >> If I recall correctly there was a reason we chose to add default and BR but >> to be honest I can't really remember what it was. I think it has to do with >> Time Zones + Locale issues and has helped detecting bizarre issues on time >> based junits (Matt B and Pierre may remember this). >> >> Regarding the rat check. The idea behind that was a fast failure in case of >> basic style violations, rather than wait until the end of the compilation. >> To be honest I don't know if this has worked as desired but should allow us >> to quickly identify validation errors which if I recall correctly were only >> detected at the end of contrib-check. >> >> And apologies for the anecdotal comments. I am away from my dev environment >> atm so I can't truly validate them. >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>
