From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201C0A10DA for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:05:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7347D1C2E8; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:05:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4C41C2BC for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:05:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E59322011; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 02 Aug 2019 17:05:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=XARMimgQEYDcWK8mbynUhlIlZ9w55jy876+g42EtDs0=; b=NeHnhp9wmHCQ F4knLz+SPAuXzIHFYtR2A3CPKfIqbNISSuN3bRT4L12HHoXfDUkqv46AI2qwWrik 8w771n3Ao8nB63B5Cq2P12XoL1if0GFKzmPmK/8XG2xeK8ytvk8oXtrGJJ+CFYaz aooNI65udcJ9IejbpKpLCT+1tzlXimw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=XARMimgQEYDcWK8mbynUhlIlZ9w55jy876+g42EtD s0=; b=WxyphkBL5Eb58XekwlmDgGMmn/mIUzhH+lbGlSlAus+5ZkHqCX55R3aVo jXZAr4EVUAtaEuHiEazhgogJYs/vLzGsPy3EvNyvJvcArCl3ZZkRLW/iL4zS0CcQ YsiSO3R1lyzXsd1HZ4CJZqlvIeRuD0r9AnoVL8jozPXs10LNWAzkLPAhnEZ365sJ +7jugni5ew7FcllRKUycoXzzPa2CptyxNDPwwG84vJBMNufj5sSJnBcqh0r7qad6 8W8fIOd6Bhx0LHxmNS3bQPGCwUozAR5SSZ2+qO9JiX5fy6dv7RuMFY4oqMb3q3y+ QcinZnMmRT2SMMrdovFseOsHnrZfQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrleelgdduvdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpehshhgsrdgtihdpughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddt fedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlh honhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5A6C980064; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Aaron Conole Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Michael Santana Francisco , David Marchand , Bruce Richardson , Ferruh Yigit , Luca Boccassi Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 23:05:29 +0200 Message-ID: <2004395.fCP1XVtkSo@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20190731145030.19956-1-aconole@redhat.com> <2139994.LeHafPJYVc@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ci: enable unit tests under travis-ci X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 02/08/2019 22:59, Aaron Conole: > Thomas Monjalon writes: > > 31/07/2019 22:54, Michael Santana Francisco: > >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:50 AM Aaron Conole 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. > >> > --- 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.