Hi all, As Ekaterina has mentioned I’ll be OOO until Monday, and I won’t be able to make any changes until then.
Alex, I missed to answer your suggestion about building on every commit, apologies for that. The discussion was open on multiple fronts and I somehow missed that one. I can easily change it back to automatic builds on Monday if we prefer to do so. The pre-commit workflows have a single button to start the build and all the tests that were previously run automatically. If we had automatic builds we would still have a button to start the tests. Thus, I think that automatic builds in the pre-commit workflow would’t make a difference in terms of usability, and we would be wasting resources in intermediate commits. As for the workflows with separate approval steps, the automatic build would save us a click at the cost of wasting resources in some cases. Since the cost of building is not that high it might make more sense to have automatic builds in these workflows. Alternatively, a detail that could improve things a bit in the separate-tests workflows is making the approval steps for running the tests depend on the approval for the build. That wouldn’t save us any clicks but it would make impossible to miss the build approval, since we would need to click it in order to enable the buttons starting the tests. It would be really great if the build started when one approves a certain test job, but as it has been mentioned that doesn’t seem possible with the current CircleCI features. Having a config that entirely satisfies the needs of everyone doesn’t seem possible, and I also think that we’ll eventually need better tooling to generate the config file, although we still need to agree on a default config. CASSANDRA-16989 has recently added flags to the config generation script allowing to swap resources and specify the environment vars. We should probably continue adding similar options to be able to manipulate the approval steps, parallelism, etc. Regards, El El mié, 20 oct 2021 a las 18:03, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> escribió: > Perhaps instead of a one-size-fits-all policy we should look to improve > scripting here anyway. We already have to overwrite the config file, it > would seem easy enough to instead invoke a script that enables the relevant > workflows? > > If we choose to just stick with a single workflow, I don’t have a super > strong preference for one approach or the other. > > From: Stefan Miklosovic <stefan.mikloso...@instaclustr.com> > Date: Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 16:58 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Save CircleCI resources with optional test jobs > Hi Ekaterina, all, > > If you eventually decide to switch it to automatic build on push (I > like how it is now though), I would appreciate it if there was some > option in generation scripts (generate.sh) so I could just have some > shortcut / alias which would disable this very easily. > > It would be very nice if there was also an option to specify > parallelism for highres nodes. My workflow so far was to 1) copy > highres to config.yml, open editor and replace "100" with "70" for > parallelism value. I am not sure what plan you guys are on but we can > at most spin sometime like 80 nodes or so at once. > > Thanks > > Stefan > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 16:14, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > First of all, I know Andres is off these days so he might not be > following > > the thread today. I will try to clear the situation as the committer who > > approved the change. > > > > Alex, I would like to apologize to you! You are right, I personally > didn’t > > have your email (sometimes gmail plays games with the mailing list > emails, > > not sure why) and I assumed the lazy consensus. Andres sent email that > this > > was implemented a month after the discussion was open and no one > responded > > here during that time. In his latest email he pointed to the Slack > > discussion that happened and where agreement was reached. > > I see your email was sent two days after he said it is implemented. I > guess > > we had to be more explicit that this email announces lazy consensus. > > > > Anyway, I am really sorry your email was missed and please, believe me > when > > I say I would have considered it as the ticket was not committed yet at > > that point! I am almost sure something similar happened to Andres knowing > > how extremely punctual and fair he is. > > > > The main goal was not to push on every commit as many times it would be > > unnecessary waste of resources and spending credits. At the same time new > > workflows with one precommit button were added to ensure people can run > all > > tests we as a community require with one click before a commit. Links > with > > the different versions/suggestions of the workflow are published on the > > ticket. > > > > Yes, now we need to click on the build. It was agreed that many times > > people push even just to preserve intermediate work and continue later > > without caring of build or anything. If for some reason it is important > to > > you or anyone else from the community to build on every commit, we can > open > > a ticket to change that. It will save a click or two in the case of the > > in-jvm upgrade tests. I would like to point out that Andres was also > > experimenting to ensure that the graph will be still as much readable as > > possible. > > > > Benedict, on your comment of feature request - we can do that. I am also > > sceptic as you if that will happen but this doesn’t mean we can’t give > it a > > try. Who knows, maybe others are also raising the topic and they might > > consider it. > > > > Honestly, I personally support the current workflow and approval required > > but if it is not acceptable to others and skipping the build approval > click > > is what others would prefer, I will open a ticket to restore that part. > > Please let me know and one more time, apologize for missing your email, > > Alex. > > > > Best regards, > > Ekaterina > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 9:01, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I think this would be fine if there were a way for approval of later > steps > > > to trigger the build automatically. As it is we have to traverse the > > > dependency graph manually, which is a bit weird. > > > > > > I can’t figure out a way to do this with the CircleCI API however. It > > > might be a feature request, and perhaps we can at least trigger the > build > > > until we get that (which may never happen). > > > > > > From: Oleksandr Petrov <oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 13:35 > > > To: dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > > > Subject: Re: Save CircleCI resources with optional test jobs > > > I thought this discussion was still ongoing, but it looks like > > > CASSANDRA-16882 is now committed. > > > > > > Could you give some context on why at least compilation is not done on > > > every commit now? > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:12 PM Oleksandr Petrov < > > > oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I personally rarely push tickets/post a patch in an raw state, but > since > > > I > > > > almost always have to approve jobs when it gets close to commit, I > don't > > > > mind also confirming utest runs. I'd say it'd be good to run at very > > > least > > > > a compilation step on every commit. I think it's fine if > > > dtests/utests/jvm > > > > tests require approval. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:22 PM Andrés de la Peña < > adelap...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> > > > >> The changes in CircleCI proposed in the previous messages are > > > implemented > > > >> in CASSANDRA-16882. They try to include the feedback from both the > > > >> reviewers and the Slack discussion at > > > >> https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CK23JSY2K/p1631627458109000. > > > >> > > > >> The patch modifies the CircleCI config to have two pairs of j8/j11 > > > >> workflows: > > > >> > > > >> * The javaX_pre-commit_tests workflows are meant to be used when a > patch > > > >> is > > > >> definitively ready for final review and/or commit. They have a > single > > > >> approval step that starts all the basic tests, including unit tests, > > > >> dtests, etc. Additionally, it has approval steps for those tests > that > > > are > > > >> not generally required in every ticket, such as upgrade tests and > the > > > >> multiplexer. This pair of workflows is quite similar to what we > > > currently > > > >> have, and the main difference is that there is an approval step to > start > > > >> the build. > > > >> > > > >> * The javaX_separate_tests workflows are meant to be used in > > > intermediate > > > >> steps and special cases such as fixing flaky tests. All the jobs in > > > these > > > >> workflows have an individual approval step, so one can run any test > job > > > >> without wasting resources in the others. For example, it makes > possible > > > to > > > >> repeatedly run a unit test without firing the entire JVM dtests. > > > >> > > > >> Here is an example of how the workflows would look like: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/adelapena/cassandra?branch=16882-option-7-trunk-v04 > > > >> > > > >> Hopefully this approach would help us to save resources in > intermediate > > > >> development steps and special cases, while keeping the current > concept > > > of > > > >> mandatory tests. > > > >> > > > >> If no one disagrees with this approach I'll commit the changes in a > few > > > >> days. > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 11:54, Andrés de la Peña < > adelap...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > > > > >> > CASSANDRA-16882 has patches for any of the mentioned > configurations > > > >> aimed > > > >> > to save CircleCI resources. > > > >> > > > > >> > There are CircleCI runs showing how each approach would look like, > > > plus > > > >> an > > > >> > additional fourth option: > > > >> > > > > >> > 1. Make the entire workflow optional: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/adelapena/cassandra/800/workflows/9cb8ca7b-ab57-431e-a22b-643d61c92c29 > > > >> > 2. Make all the test jobs optional: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/adelapena/cassandra/798/workflows/a859cfbc-fdf8-4468-beb9-b2ee17dc1ae3 > > > >> > 3. Make all the mandatory test jobs depend on a single optional > job: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/adelapena/cassandra/802/workflows/0372f5d6-d1f0-4f0e-91a3-aa75a2712bae > > > >> > 4. Combine 2 and 3 to have approval jobs for both individual > tests and > > > >> the > > > >> > grouped mandatory tests: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/adelapena/cassandra/803/workflows/08ae07d5-6a1e-4e5b-bc0c-32bdc9b9f190 > > > >> > > > > >> > I think that the fourth option gives us more flexibility, because > it > > > >> > allows us to start any combination of tests we want while it > keeps the > > > >> > concept of required tests. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 17:47, Andrés de la Peña < > > > >> a.penya.gar...@gmail.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Hello all, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> The current CircleCI configuration automatically runs the unit > tests, > > > >> JVM > > > >> >> dtests and cqhshlib tests. This is done by default for every > commit > > > or, > > > >> >> with some configuration, for every push. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Along the lifecycle of a ticket it is quite frequent to have > multiple > > > >> >> commits and pushes, all running these test jobs. I'd say that > > > >> frequently it > > > >> >> is not necessary to run the tests for some of those intermediate > > > >> commits > > > >> >> and pushes. For example, one can show proofs of concept, or have > > > >> multiple > > > >> >> rounds of review before actually running the tests. Running the > tests > > > >> for > > > >> >> every change can produce an unnecessary expense of CircleCI > > > resources. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I think we could make running those tests optional, as well as > > > clearly > > > >> >> specifying in the documentation what are the tests runs that are > > > >> mandatory > > > >> >> before actually committing. We could do this in different ways: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> 1. Make the entire CircleCI workflow optional, so the build job > > > >> requires > > > >> >> manual approval. Once the build is approved the mandatory test > jobs > > > >> would > > > >> >> be run without any further approval, exactly as it's currently > done. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> 2. Make all the test jobs optional, so every test job requires > manual > > > >> >> approval, and the documentation specifies which tests are > mandatory > > > in > > > >> the > > > >> >> final steps of a ticket. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> 3. Make all the mandatory test jobs depend on a single optional > job, > > > so > > > >> >> we have a single button to optionally run all the mandatory > tests. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I think any of these changes, or a combination of them, would > > > >> >> significantly reduce the usage of resources without making things > > > less > > > >> >> tested. The only downside I can think of is that we would need > some > > > >> >> additional clicks on the CircleCI GUI. What do you think? > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > alex p > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > alex p > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >
