Re: Suggestions on improving Buildbot Builds

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Hi Gavin,

We are still running RAT report (at least in trunk), normal?

Jacques

Le 03/09/2014 12:02, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Ha forgot, you may still  have a copy of an email  "Rat xsl sylesheet used in builbot scripts"  from venkatmangudi@gmail.com
> At least I have it here if you think it can behelpful
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 03/09/2014 11:57, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Hi Gavin,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments, inline...
>>
>> Le 03/09/2014 10:23, Gavin McDonald a écrit :
>>>     Hi All,
>>>
>>> So recently I worked on curing issues with your buildbot build at
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk
>>>
>>> Part of the build involves running Apache RAT on your code and producing a report at
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/rat-output.html
>>>
>>> A summary of which also appears on the league table of participating projects at
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html
>>>
>>>
>>> You have quite a bit of code that RAT has to go through in order to compile these reports and
>>> this takes up over an hour of your build on its own. Your build gets run on a per commit basis
>>> so this RAT report is run each and every time  a commit is made.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose two suggestions.
>>>
>>> Suggestion One :
>>> ==============
>>>
>>> We remove the RAT report steps from your normal build and stick those steps
>>> into its own build, separate of any other build steps. This build would run via a nightly trigger only.
>>>
>>> This would bring your normal build down to just 15 minutes, and is then fine to continue to
>>> run on a per commit basis, concentrating on compile checks, docs and uploading of snapshots.
>>
>> I think in all cases we don't need to run the RAT report on each commit, nightly would be well enough
>>
>>>
>>> Suggestion Two :
>>> ==============
>>>
>>> Your RAT report says there are 2273 (currently) invalid or unlicensed files. There are obviously
>>> some false reports in there, such as generated files that probably should not be checked.
>>>
>>> The suggestion is, to go through the report at
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/rat-output.html
>>>
>>> and see what files and/or directories can be excluded from the RAT check.
>>> Lets get it down to a realistic figure that can then show you exactly what genuine files are missing
>>> license headers.
>>>
>>> This can be self-served by the addition of a rat-excludes file in your svn. I then tell RAT to read this
>>> file and the excludes are automatic.
>>>
>>> See the 'More Reading and links' section of
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html
>>>
>>> for example rat-exclude files.
>>>
>>> I am happy to get you started and create a patch with a starter rat-excludes file.
>>>
>>> If you are happy with these suggestions, let me know and I'll get started.
>>
>> That would be great, even if at the moment we are not doing a great use of RAT.
>> This remembers me also this thread http://markmail.org/message/jkeqbdtf5im6zjlm I have completely forgottten it since :/ (as ever, bigger fishes...)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>>
>>> Gav…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>