Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> writes: > 02/08/2019 22:59, Aaron Conole: >> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> writes: >> > 31/07/2019 22:54, Michael Santana Francisco: >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:50 AM Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > --- a/.ci/linux-build.sh >> >> > +++ b/.ci/linux-build.sh >> >> > @@ -22,3 +22,11 @@ fi >> >> > OPTS="$OPTS --default-library=$DEF_LIB" >> >> > meson build --werror -Dexamples=all $OPTS >> >> > ninja -C build >> >> > + >> >> > +if [ "$RUN_TESTS" = "1" ]; then >> >> > + # On the test build, also build the documentation, since it's >> >> > expensive >> >> > + # and we shouldn't need to build so much of it. >> >> > + ninja -C build doc >> > >> > I am not sure to understand the comment. >> > Do you mean you build the documentation only once, >> > which is when running tests? >> >> Yes. >> >> > Why it is not a new option similar as RUN_TESTS? >> >> I mentioned it at: >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-July/136635.html also. Because >> it adds build time. > > I don't understand. > If you set RUN_TESTS and BUILD_DOCS on the same build, > how is it adding build time? > I'm just suggesting to make explicit that tests and docs > are done in the same run.
Sure I'll do that - it's not like I need to mine a new environment variable from somewhere. :) >> >> > --- a/.travis.yml >> >> > +++ b/.travis.yml >> >> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ env: >> >> > - DEF_LIB="shared" >> >> > - DEF_LIB="static" OPTS="-Denable_kmods=false" >> >> > - DEF_LIB="shared" OPTS="-Denable_kmods=false" >> >> > + - DEF_LIB="shared" RUN_TESTS=1 >> >> I don't agree with this. This is redundant. Why not put RUN_TESTS=1 on >> >> an already exiting builds instead of adding two new builds like you >> >> are doing here? >> > >> > I agree it is a strange logic. >> > Why not use an existing build to run the tests? >> >> The biggest reason is when it fails, it is difficult to know why "at a >> glance." When it does fail due to unit tests, it sometimes takes a >> long time to load the logs - so just knowing that the failure is likely >> in the unit tests area vs. build is helpful to understand where to start >> looking. >> >> It isn't a big deal to merge them, though if you'd prefer it. > > It looks to be a good reason. > I'm just sad that we cannot reuse an existing build in another way. > But I guess the infrastructure cache (ccache or other) will be enough.
