[tor-bugs] #22636 [Core Tor/Tor]: Add Travis configs so GitHub forks get CI coverage
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki
blackhole at torproject.org
Mon Jul 17 20:15:36 UTC 2017
#22636: Add Travis configs so GitHub forks get CI coverage
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: catalyst | Owner:
| patrickod
Type: defect | Status:
| needs_revision
Priority: High | Milestone: Tor:
| 0.3.2.x-final
Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: continuous-integration ci testing | Actual Points: .5
best-practice unit-testing new-developers |
travis |
Parent ID: | Points: .5
Reviewer: catalyst | Sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by isis):
Replying to [comment:14 catalyst]:
> Thanks! This is very useful to have. Technically this looks mostly
good to me, with a few minor (mostly documentation) nits.
>
> I have a GitHub account with Travis CI enabled. I confirm that tests on
`bug22636_0.3.1` [https://travis-ci.org/tlyu/tor/builds/254404828 pass]
and tests on `bug22636_0.2.4` [https://travis-
ci.org/tlyu/tor/builds/254484617 pass].
>
> I'm trying to understand the differences between this and our Jenkins
configurations. It looks like our Jenkins config turns on `--disable-
silent-rules` to get a bit more verbosity on the compile lines; should we
do likewise?
Yes, this is a good idea.
> Jenkins also does `make check` instead of `make check-spaces` and `make
test`. Is there some reason to not do `make check`? I think that doesn't
significantly increase the run time, but I haven't measured the difference
yet.
This is probably a good idea, as it tests more. The output might be a bit
tricky to get, because the way it is configured right now, if some step
fails, the whole CI build will fail fast. So e.g. if compilation failed,
don't waste more time testing. Also if `make check-spaces` fails, your
commit needs to be fixed up anyway, so again don't bother wasting time
testing. Whereas if we run `make check` it does all this in one go, and
if it fails some step, it only reports that at the end of everything.
Also, all the output that we'd need in order to see what failed gets
shoved into a file (but possibly I can get that output with a `after-
script` stanza?).
> Commenting the `.travis.yml` with brief explanations of these choices
might be a good idea. Also, squashing the commits somewhat would be good.
Some of the commit messages, like the ones involving Rust config choices,
might work better as comments in `.travis.yml`.
Yes, this is a great idea.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/22636#comment:15>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
More information about the tor-bugs
mailing list