You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fineract.apache.org by Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com> on 2021/11/04 14:55:17 UTC
CI based on GitHub Actions
Hi all
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
"Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.”
Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github Actions and raised a PR for it (https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955 <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955>). This is a “parallel” pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for each PR.
My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could switch off the Travis one altogether.
The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a worthwhile exercise.
Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then address any issues to get them working asap.
Regards
Petri
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by Nasser Kaze <ka...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 01:41 VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
> +1
>
> El jue, 4 nov 2021 a las 17:17, Nazeer Hussain Shaik (<
> nazeerhussain.shaik@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nazeer
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:42 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 :)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger <mi...@vorburger.ch> has
>>>>> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
>>>>> cheetah@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, <be...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Petri,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good idea !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>>>>>> Benura
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <
>>>>>>> petri.tuomola@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been
>>>>>>>> getting more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours
>>>>>>>> before the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at
>>>>>>>> all. This seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked
>>>>>>>> about this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be
>>>>>>>> increasing that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with
>>>>>>>> it, we suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI
>>>>>>>> instead.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>>>>>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
>>>>>>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a
>>>>>>>> “parallel” pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once
>>>>>>>> this PR is merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis
>>>>>>>> build for each PR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare
>>>>>>>> for the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
>>>>>>>> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>>>>>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>>>>>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>>>>>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>>>>>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>>>>>>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>>>>>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>>>>>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Petri
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Ed Cable*
>>>>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
>>>>> edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>>>>>
>>>>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>>>>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <vi...@fintecheando.mx>.
+1
El jue, 4 nov 2021 a las 17:17, Nazeer Hussain Shaik (<
nazeerhussain.shaik@gmail.com>) escribió:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Nazeer
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:42 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 :)
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger <mi...@vorburger.ch> has
>>>> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
>>>> cheetah@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, <be...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Petri,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good idea !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>>>>> Benura
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>>>>>>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
>>>>>>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>>>>>>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>>>>>>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be
>>>>>>> increasing that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with
>>>>>>> it, we suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI
>>>>>>> instead.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>>>>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
>>>>>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>>>>>>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>>>>>>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>>>>>>> each PR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
>>>>>>> the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
>>>>>>> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>>>>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>>>>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>>>>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>>>>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>>>>>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>>>>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>>>>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Petri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Ed Cable*
>>>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
>>>> edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>>>>
>>>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>>>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>>
>>>>
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by Nazeer Hussain Shaik <na...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks,
Nazeer
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:42 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
> +1 :)
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger <mi...@vorburger.ch> has
>>> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
>>> cheetah@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>>>> reliable.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, <be...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Petri,
>>>>>
>>>>> Good idea !
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>>>> Benura
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>>>>>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
>>>>>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>>>>>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>>>>>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be
>>>>>> increasing that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with
>>>>>> it, we suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI
>>>>>> instead.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>>>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
>>>>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>>>>>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>>>>>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>>>>>> each PR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
>>>>>> the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
>>>>>> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>>>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>>>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>>>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>>>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>>>>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>>>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>>>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Petri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Ed Cable*
>>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
>>> edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>>>
>>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>
>>>
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org>.
+1 :)
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger <mi...@vorburger.ch> has
>> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
>> cheetah@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>>> reliable.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, <be...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Petri,
>>>>
>>>> Good idea !
>>>>
>>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>>> Benura
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>>>>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
>>>>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>>>>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>>>>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
>>>>> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
>>>>> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.
>>>>> ”
>>>>>
>>>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
>>>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>>>>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>>>>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>>>>> each PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
>>>>> the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
>>>>> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>>>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Petri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Ed Cable*
>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
>> edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>>
>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>
>>
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by Awasum Yannick <aw...@apache.org>.
+1
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org> wrote:
> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger <mi...@vorburger.ch> has
> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>
> Ed
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
> cheetah@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>> reliable.
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Petri,
>>>
>>> Good idea !
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>> Benura
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>>>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
>>>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>>>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>>>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>>
>>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
>>>> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
>>>> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.
>>>> ”
>>>>
>>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
>>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>>>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>>>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>>>> each PR.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
>>>> the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
>>>> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>>>>
>>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>>
>>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Petri
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> *Ed Cable*
> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>
> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>
>
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org>.
+1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger <mi...@vorburger.ch> has been
a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
Ed
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
cheetah@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really reliable.
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Petri,
>>
>> Good idea !
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Benura
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
>>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>
>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
>>> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
>>> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.
>>> ”
>>>
>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>>> each PR.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for the
>>> next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could switch
>>> off the Travis one altogether.
>>>
>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>
>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Petri
>>>
>>>
--
*Ed Cable*
President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
*Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by Aleksandar Vidakovic <ch...@monkeysintown.com>.
+1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really reliable.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Petri,
>
> Good idea !
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Benura
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting more
>> and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before the
>> build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>
>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
>> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
>> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.”
>>
>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore alternatives.To
>> try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github Actions and
>> raised a PR for it (https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This
>> is a “parallel” pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So
>> once this PR is merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a
>> Travis build for each PR.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for the
>> next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could switch
>> off the Travis one altogether.
>>
>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>> worthwhile exercise.
>>
>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>
>> Regards
>> Petri
>>
>>
Re: CI based on GitHub Actions
Posted by Benura Abeywardena <be...@gmail.com>.
Hi Petri,
Good idea !
Thanks & Regards,
Benura
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <pe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting more
> and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before the
> build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>
> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.”
>
> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore alternatives.To
> try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github Actions and
> raised a PR for it (https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This
> is a “parallel” pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So
> once this PR is merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a
> Travis build for each PR.
>
> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for the
> next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could switch
> off the Travis one altogether.
>
> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
> worthwhile exercise.
>
> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then address
> any issues to get them working asap.
>
> Regards
> Petri
>
>