I split up the remaining CI changes into 4 new attached patches. The latest changes are still passing on my fork https://github.com/andrewhop/haproxy/actions/runs/6090899582.
I was hoping to take advantage of the better HAProxy support in AWS-LC's CI but I'm running into some issues in https://github.com/aws/aws-lc/pull/1174 I was wondering if you had any pointers of what to look at. I think this is CodeBuild specific issue since the tests pass in HAProxy's CI and when I run AWS-LC's CI locally. I just can't figure out what CodeBuild might be doing to mess with the results. Looking at the log for mcli_start_progs.vtc the two sleep programs are started as expected but the overall process returns the wrong exit code (0x0 instead of 0x82). Does anything stand out to you as weird looking? On 9/4/23, 10:02 AM, "William Lallemand" <wlallem...@haproxy.com <mailto:wlallem...@haproxy.com>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:25:55AM +0000, Hopkins, Andrew wrote: > Hi, Hi Andrew! > I have what I think it approaching the final 3 patches attached. I > cleaned up the first patch so it just includes the code, makefile, and > documentation changes to support AWS-LC. The second patch disables the > one FFDH test when HAPRoxy is build with AWS-LC. I merged these two ones which are fine. > Finally, the third patch does a few things: > 1. Add support to matrix.py to find the latest release of AWS-LC, it > would be a one line change to add AWS-LC to build on every push in > matrix.py in the future > 2. Update matrix.py to have a main function, > this looks like a big change but is all whitespace. I did this because > I needed a way to get the latest version in aws-lc.yml. I did that by > invoking the determine_latest_aws_lc function in the GitHub action, > I'm open to other suggestions > 3. Add a weekly build of HAProxy with > the latest release of AWS-LC with the same schedule as the other > weekly jobs: Thursdays at 00:00 > Seems like you just list what could be 3 differents patches in my opinion. :-) Also this could have been your commit message too! I didn't merged this one, there is a lot going on in there. It would be better to split them for better readibility. We encourage to write micro commits with only one feature per patch. I'm fine with the final result though, but could you split it in 3 patches? Thanks > You can see an example of the run here [1]. Also, I discovered you can > add `workflow_dispatch` to scheduled tasks so you can manually trigger > them without having to tweak the cron schedule. > > [1] https://github.com/andrewhop/haproxy/actions/runs/6044112377 > <https://github.com/andrewhop/haproxy/actions/runs/6044112377> > That's great, that will be useful this way! Thanks -- William Lallemand
0004-MINOR-ci-Add-a-weekly-CI-run-building-with-AWS-LC.patch
Description: 0004-MINOR-ci-Add-a-weekly-CI-run-building-with-AWS-LC.patch
0003-MINOR-ci-Update-matrix.py-so-all-code-is-contained-i.patch
Description: 0003-MINOR-ci-Update-matrix.py-so-all-code-is-contained-i.patch
0002-MINOR-ci-add-support-to-matrix.py-to-determine-the-l.patch
Description: 0002-MINOR-ci-add-support-to-matrix.py-to-determine-the-l.patch
0001-MINOR-ci-add-support-to-build-ssl.sh-to-download-and.patch
Description: 0001-MINOR-ci-add-support-to-build-ssl.sh-to-download-and.patch
