[SSSD] [RFC] Add basic support for CI test execution

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Tue Jun 24 06:58:05 UTC 2014


On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:43:45PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 06/13/2014 10:43 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (12/06/14 22:53), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> >>On 06/11/2014 05:28 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> >>>On 06/11/2014 03:46 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>>>On (11/06/14 14:52), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> >>>>>On 06/11/2014 10:52 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>>>>>I would prefer to split this function into two parts.
> >>>>>>     * running static analyser
> >>>>>>     * code coverage.
> >>>>>>The compilation with scan-build is slow and it is not necessary for code
> >>>>>>coverage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Do you mean that someone would prefer running one without the other? Which one
> >>>>>is more important in your opinion? Would you run one of them locally?
> >>>>>
> >>>>yes, they are two different things.
> >>>
> >>>>>I'd personally run Clang more often than the code coverage collection just to
> >>>>>catch coding mistakes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>me too.
> >>>
> >>>So, when would you like to run each of them, what would be your usage pattern?
> >>
> >>Lukas, could you please answer the above?
> >>
> >I do not have a preference. I just wanted to split this task to two different
> >parts. In future, we can use another static analysers and code coverage could
> >complicate this.
> 
> Sure. Let's leave it like this for now. So far nothing ties it to code
> coverage collection and it's grouped only by the overhead amount. We can
> easily move it someplace else later.
> 
> >>I don't want to implement the ability to run arbitrary builds and tests with
> >>bare Bash as it would seriously complicate the code. Epoxy will help here,
> >>but I'd like to postpone work on its adoption until we've proven the
> >>usefullness of CI tests.
> >>
> >>So, I'll have to provide only two or at most three sets of tests to choose
> >>from. Where would you rather see the Clang and Lcov execution? In the
> >>short/(medium/)long set?
> >>
> >>Currently they're both in the long (full) set, which executes in about 15
> >>minutes. The short (essential) set is just above 2 minutes.
> >>
> >>The Clang execution overhead is about 5 minutes. We can combine it with either
> >>of the builds, having a dedicated build for it seems a waste.
> >>
> >>There doesn't seem to be more than a minute of overhead for collecting
> >>coverage data, but we need a dedicated build for it.
> >>
> >>So, Lukas, do you have any ideas/preferences? Anyone else?
> >
> >I am aware of scan-build overhead. So, it can stay in full set.
> >We can rearrange test sets in future after some experiences and feedback from
> >other people.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Nick

Sounds good to me, too!



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list