On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 22:21:34 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 21 May 2018 at 09:22, Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 04:46:15 UTC, Manu wrote:
This CI situation with the DMD/druntime repos is not okay.
It takes ages... **hours** sometimes, for CI to complete.
It's all this 'auto-tester' one, which seems to lock up on
the last few
tests.
This makes DMD is a rather unenjoyable project to contribute
to.
I had a sudden burst of inspiration, but it's very rapidly
wearing off.
It might take hours for CI to complete, but it can take weeks
or months for someone to review your code...so the CI time
doesn't really seem to matter for myself. That is unless
you're trying to use the CI in your modify/test development
cycle. However, that's should be solvable by testing locally
in most cases.
I use CI to test the platforms I don't build locally. That's
natural for cross-platform development.
Ah I see. Well for me it seemed worth the effort to setup at
least a windows and linux machine which covers most testing. The
worst was when we were having intermittent seg faults on 32-bit
OSx...I eventually borrowed my girlfriends macbook to reproduce
and debug that one...ugh that was a pain. In any case I'd
recommend having one posix and one windows platform. There's
always VMs if you need em :)
But to address your original concern, I'm not sure that
decreasing the testing required to integrate changes is
necessarily a net positive. If you can decrease test time while
maintaining the same coverage then by all means, let's do that!
But I think in general you have to find a balance between the two.
Since you are using CI for your modify/build/test development
cycle, one idea would be to define some sort of interface that
the CI's could use to limit what they are testing for a
particular PR. You could have it search through the comments for
something like "limit test to dmd runnable" or something like
that.
