You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@continuum.apache.org by Erik Ruisma <fe...@gmail.com> on 2007/03/14 11:47:07 UTC
build failures, warnings and continuum
Hello all,
I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question, but I thought
to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are generated, and
artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when there are some
unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when there are test
failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem during the
build.
How would you set this up ?
We've had some ideas but none of them seems the respond to our questions.
Perhaps we're missing something here?
Currently, the nightly build is fails if there are test failures, so the
site is not published, the artifact is not deployed, ... I think these are
the default settings.
-1-
One idea was to use the variable "maven.test.failure.ignore=true" for all
continuum builds => if the test fails, the site is published and the
artifact is deployed.
BUT the build result is successfull and no mail is sent to the development
team => The development team doesn't know they are test failures ... unless
they look at the surefire report. We prefer to send a mail in this case with
a clear indications that there is a problem.
-2-
Another idea was to use the command line parameter --fail-at-end in all
continuum build definitions example: mvn clean deploy site
--fail-at-end.
BUT this is not a good solution as the tests are also executed when calling
the site goal, so this goal fails before it's able to do the deployment.
-3-
Another idea was to provide an extra build definition inside continuum.
A) clean deploy site site:deploy --batch-mode -
Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true
Result: the artifact is deployed and the site is generated, but the build
is successfull (no mail sent)
B) clean test --batch-mode
Result: nothing is done, and the build fails when there are test failures
(mail is sent to development team)
Any other ideas are highly appreciated.
Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Posted by Erik Ruisma <fe...@gmail.com>.
Thanks a lot for the answer. I think we will wait for the 1.1 to be released
(and hoping this will be anytime soon :-) )
Erik.
On 4/5/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>
> In 1.1, you can force a build without changes (and re-do a complete
> checkout)
> And if you have 2 build definitions, the second build definition won't
> look if you have changes since the latest update of the working copy but
> since the latest execution of the current build
> definition to prevent to skip a build because an other build definition
> has already updated the working copy.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> David Roussel a écrit :
> > It's a bit of a hack, but you can see earlier posts in this list for how
> > to force a build with no changes, but it won't honour your dependency.
> > BTW it just uses curl and cron.
> >
> > As for the bug in 1.0.3, I think only bugs in 1.1-alpha are being fixed
> > by the commiters, so your best bet is to test on 1.1. Not great.
> >
> > BTW, you can do all this stuff in luntbuild.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:29:21 +0200, "Erik Ruisma"
> > <fe...@gmail.com> said:
> >> Indeed we use continuum 1.0.3.
> >>
> >> Ok we now got them running seperately, BUT only the first build is
> >> actually
> >> executed, the second build does not start as there are no changes in
> CVS.
> >> Is there any way to force a build even if there are no changes? In fact
> >> what
> >> I really want is that the second build is only executed if the first
> >> build
> >> has been launched.
> >>
> >> So scheduling two builds for the same project at the same time does not
> >> work, I believe that's a bug.
> >>
> >> On 4/3/07, David Roussel <da...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I take it you've got them to run ok separately? Do then run ok when
> >>> not scheduled together?
> >>>
> >>> Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
> >>>> However this seems to create some new problems.
> >>>> So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
> >>>> launching the
> >>>> tests, one creating and deploying the site.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
> >>>> actually runs.
> >>>> Why ?
> >>>> I can find the following in our logs:
> >>>> INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> >>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> >>>> Enqueuing
> >>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
> >>>> INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> >>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> >>>> Enqueuing
> >>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
> >>>>
> >>>> Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
> >>>> continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
> >>>> the last
> >>>> element from the queue remains?
> >>>>
> >>>> What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
> >>>> complex, I
> >>>> don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
> >>>> definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
> >>>> to be also
> >>>> an issue...?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any feedback welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/15/07, David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them. The
> >>>>> second build to just do the site.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
> >>>>> <fe...@gmail.com> said:
> >>>>>> Hello all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
> >>>>> but I
> >>>>>> thought
> >>>>>> to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
> >>>>> generated,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
> >>>>> there are
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>> unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
> >>>>> there are
> >>>>>> test
> >>>>>> failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
> >>>>> during
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> build.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How would you set this up ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
In 1.1, you can force a build without changes (and re-do a complete checkout)
And if you have 2 build definitions, the second build definition won't look if you have changes since the latest update of the working copy but since the latest execution of the current build
definition to prevent to skip a build because an other build definition has already updated the working copy.
Emmanuel
David Roussel a écrit :
> It's a bit of a hack, but you can see earlier posts in this list for how
> to force a build with no changes, but it won't honour your dependency.
> BTW it just uses curl and cron.
>
> As for the bug in 1.0.3, I think only bugs in 1.1-alpha are being fixed
> by the commiters, so your best bet is to test on 1.1. Not great.
>
> BTW, you can do all this stuff in luntbuild.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:29:21 +0200, "Erik Ruisma"
> <fe...@gmail.com> said:
>> Indeed we use continuum 1.0.3.
>>
>> Ok we now got them running seperately, BUT only the first build is
>> actually
>> executed, the second build does not start as there are no changes in CVS.
>> Is there any way to force a build even if there are no changes? In fact
>> what
>> I really want is that the second build is only executed if the first
>> build
>> has been launched.
>>
>> So scheduling two builds for the same project at the same time does not
>> work, I believe that's a bug.
>>
>> On 4/3/07, David Roussel <da...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
>>> I take it you've got them to run ok separately? Do then run ok when
>>> not scheduled together?
>>>
>>> Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
>>>> However this seems to create some new problems.
>>>> So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
>>>> launching the
>>>> tests, one creating and deploying the site.
>>>>
>>>> We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
>>>> actually runs.
>>>> Why ?
>>>> I can find the following in our logs:
>>>> INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
>>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
>>>> Enqueuing
>>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
>>>> INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
>>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
>>>> Enqueuing
>>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
>>>>
>>>> Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
>>>> continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
>>>> the last
>>>> element from the queue remains?
>>>>
>>>> What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
>>>> complex, I
>>>> don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
>>>> definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
>>>> to be also
>>>> an issue...?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/15/07, David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them. The
>>>>> second build to just do the site.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
>>>>> <fe...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
>>>>> but I
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>> to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
>>>>> generated,
>>>>> and
>>>>>> artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
>>>>> there are
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
>>>>> there are
>>>>>> test
>>>>>> failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
>>>>> during
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you set this up ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Posted by David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com>.
It's a bit of a hack, but you can see earlier posts in this list for how
to force a build with no changes, but it won't honour your dependency.
BTW it just uses curl and cron.
As for the bug in 1.0.3, I think only bugs in 1.1-alpha are being fixed
by the commiters, so your best bet is to test on 1.1. Not great.
BTW, you can do all this stuff in luntbuild.
David
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:29:21 +0200, "Erik Ruisma"
<fe...@gmail.com> said:
> Indeed we use continuum 1.0.3.
>
> Ok we now got them running seperately, BUT only the first build is
> actually
> executed, the second build does not start as there are no changes in CVS.
> Is there any way to force a build even if there are no changes? In fact
> what
> I really want is that the second build is only executed if the first
> build
> has been launched.
>
> So scheduling two builds for the same project at the same time does not
> work, I believe that's a bug.
>
> On 4/3/07, David Roussel <da...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I take it you've got them to run ok separately? Do then run ok when
> > not scheduled together?
> >
> > Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
> >
> >
> > On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
> > > However this seems to create some new problems.
> > > So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
> > > launching the
> > > tests, one creating and deploying the site.
> > >
> > > We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
> > > actually runs.
> > > Why ?
> > > I can find the following in our logs:
> > > INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> > > [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> > > Enqueuing
> > > 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
> > > INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> > > [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> > > Enqueuing
> > > 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
> > >
> > > Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
> > > continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
> > > the last
> > > element from the queue remains?
> > >
> > > What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
> > > complex, I
> > > don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
> > > definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
> > > to be also
> > > an issue...?
> > >
> > >
> > > Any feedback welcome.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them. The
> > >> second build to just do the site.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
> > >> <fe...@gmail.com> said:
> > >> > Hello all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
> > >> but I
> > >> > thought
> > >> > to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
> > >> >
> > >> > In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
> > >> generated,
> > >> and
> > >> > artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
> > >> there are
> > >> > some
> > >> > unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
> > >> there are
> > >> > test
> > >> > failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
> > >> during
> > >> > the
> > >> > build.
> > >> >
> > >> > How would you set this up ?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Posted by Erik Ruisma <fe...@gmail.com>.
Indeed we use continuum 1.0.3.
Ok we now got them running seperately, BUT only the first build is actually
executed, the second build does not start as there are no changes in CVS.
Is there any way to force a build even if there are no changes? In fact what
I really want is that the second build is only executed if the first build
has been launched.
So scheduling two builds for the same project at the same time does not
work, I believe that's a bug.
On 4/3/07, David Roussel <da...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
>
> I take it you've got them to run ok separately? Do then run ok when
> not scheduled together?
>
> Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
>
>
> On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
> > However this seems to create some new problems.
> > So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
> > launching the
> > tests, one creating and deploying the site.
> >
> > We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
> > actually runs.
> > Why ?
> > I can find the following in our logs:
> > INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> > [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> > Enqueuing
> > 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
> > INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> > [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> > Enqueuing
> > 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
> >
> > Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
> > continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
> > the last
> > element from the queue remains?
> >
> > What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
> > complex, I
> > don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
> > definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
> > to be also
> > an issue...?
> >
> >
> > Any feedback welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/07, David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them. The
> >> second build to just do the site.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
> >> <fe...@gmail.com> said:
> >> > Hello all,
> >> >
> >> > I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
> >> but I
> >> > thought
> >> > to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
> >> >
> >> > In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
> >> generated,
> >> and
> >> > artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
> >> there are
> >> > some
> >> > unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
> >> there are
> >> > test
> >> > failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
> >> during
> >> > the
> >> > build.
> >> >
> >> > How would you set this up ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Posted by David Roussel <da...@diroussel.xsmail.com>.
I take it you've got them to run ok separately? Do then run ok when
not scheduled together?
Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
> Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
> However this seems to create some new problems.
> So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
> launching the
> tests, one creating and deploying the site.
>
> We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
> actually runs.
> Why ?
> I can find the following in our logs:
> INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> Enqueuing
> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
> INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum -
> Enqueuing
> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
>
> Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
> continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
> the last
> element from the queue remains?
>
> What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
> complex, I
> don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
> definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
> to be also
> an issue...?
>
>
> Any feedback welcome.
>
>
>
> On 3/15/07, David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them. The
>> second build to just do the site.
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
>> <fe...@gmail.com> said:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
>> but I
>> > thought
>> > to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
>> >
>> > In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
>> generated,
>> and
>> > artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
>> there are
>> > some
>> > unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
>> there are
>> > test
>> > failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
>> during
>> > the
>> > build.
>> >
>> > How would you set this up ?
>> >
>> >
>>
Continuum on jpackage system
Posted by Darren Hartford <dh...@ghsinc.com>.
Hey all,
I have been trying to get continuum to run on a linux system (testing
FC5 and Centos4) with jpackage java binaries.
Normally with jpackage, you can source the java.conf file to help set
JAVA_HOME:
. /etc/java/java.conf
However, there does not seem to be a location that will work for this
and will ONLY work if I export JAVA_HOME, which is precisely what I'm
trying to avoid (so far continuum is the only application I've had
issues with this).
ERROR | wrapper | <date> | Unable to start JVM: No such file or
directory (2)
Has anyone else run into this, or know the correct location to source
java.conf?
Thanky,
-Darren
Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Posted by Erik Ruisma <fe...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
However this seems to create some new problems.
So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one launching the
tests, one creating and deploying the site.
We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
actually runs.
Why ?
I can find the following in our logs:
INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
[defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum - Enqueuing
'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
[defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO Continuum - Enqueuing
'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only the last
element from the queue remains?
What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more complex, I
don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems to be also
an issue...?
Any feedback welcome.
On 3/15/07, David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
>
> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them. The
> second build to just do the site.
>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
> <fe...@gmail.com> said:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question, but I
> > thought
> > to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
> >
> > In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are generated,
> and
> > artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when there are
> > some
> > unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when there are
> > test
> > failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem during
> > the
> > build.
> >
> > How would you set this up ?
> >
> >
>
Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Posted by David Roussel <co...@diroussel.xsmail.com>.
Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them. The
second build to just do the site.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
<fe...@gmail.com> said:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question, but I
> thought
> to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
>
> In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are generated, and
> artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when there are
> some
> unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when there are
> test
> failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem during
> the
> build.
>
> How would you set this up ?
>
>