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 5BAA2A10DA for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:07:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF3B1C2E8; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:07:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1331C2DE for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:07:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24D0A882EA; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 21:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (unknown [10.18.25.67]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54FFA600C1; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 21:07:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Michael Santana Francisco , David Marchand , Bruce Richardson , Ferruh Yigit , Luca Boccassi References: <20190731145030.19956-1-aconole@redhat.com> <2139994.LeHafPJYVc@xps> <2004395.fCP1XVtkSo@xps> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 17:07:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2004395.fCP1XVtkSo@xps> (Thomas Monjalon's message of "Fri, 02 Aug 2019 23:05:29 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Fri, 02 Aug 2019 21:07:03 +0000 (UTC) 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" Thomas Monjalon writes: > 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. 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.