You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> on 2019/12/01 00:38:51 UTC
[VOTE] Github action migration plan
Hello everyone ,
I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to vote on
the transition plan.
Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do experiments.
The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It has
additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since the cache
size is too small to use.
From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable enough to
swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache infra to
disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in parallel
groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin condition,
we need to iterate and improve it further.
In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the jenkins cpp
job and then further along move the unit test and integration test workflow
as they stabilize.
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>.
It can take days to get a jenkins pass, we should be focused on migrating
what we have first adding new workflows on a stable base is easy to do.
-Ali
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:04 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ali, Xiaolong,
>
> Instead of waiting for the whole pull request to pass, how about adding
> those go unit tests and code style verification as new Github Action?
>
> So we can start moving towards Github Action.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Sijie
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:54 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely we launch 30 jobs in parallel per pr so it should not be a
> > problem, once we finish migration of current jobs we can start the
> process
> > of adding new ones.
> >
> > -Ali
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:39 PM xiaolong ran <ra...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Ali work for this, overall looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Currently, Jenkins does not check the unit tests and code
> specifications
> > > related
> > > to Go, as follows:
> > >
> > > - pulsar-client-go
> > > - pulsar-functions-go
> > >
> > >
> > > In GitHub action CI. Can we consider integrating them?
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774 <
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks
> > > Xiaolong Ran
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 在 2019年12月3日，上午8:52，Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> 写道：
> > > >
> > > > Here is PIP document
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13QKvfTj4-AMt3j7JTSE7LcyiXBK0Z0EGzp5HgMwpoj4/edit#
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Without a PIP, the knowledge scatters out into many different places
> > and
> > > >> many different conversations.
> > > >> a PIP is better since other people in the community can participate
> in
> > > the
> > > >> development if they are interested in helping this.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> - Sijie
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a
> > > core
> > > >>> stable base which we can activate as a checkin condition.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642/files#diff-00053b72be028281c6f9a446fbf91ef5
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The unstable tests will be need to rewritten before being removed
> > from
> > > >>> exclusion we have benefits of dedicated machines for testing in
> > github
> > > so
> > > >>> we can give dedicated ports an an example to avoid contention.
> > > >>> This should take about a week a two or work.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Integration tests are a bigger issue I don't think we can stabilize
> > the
> > > >>> current tests easily, we probably want to reorg things, move
> > > >>> external elements like spark, storm, flink and various io
> connectors
> > > in a
> > > >>> different module so we have lighter test load that we can harden
> > > against
> > > >>> failures.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I can compile this into a PIP if community want's that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Ali
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:37 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Ali,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see
> > what
> > > >> is
> > > >>>> the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration
> tests.
> > > >>>> In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java
> > unit
> > > >>>> tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal
> > into
> > > >>>> a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Sijie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hello everyone ,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready
> to
> > > >>> vote
> > > >>>> on
> > > >>>>> the transition plan.
> > > >>>>> Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
> > > >>>>> contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do
> > > >> experiments.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It
> > has
> > > >>>>> additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation
> changes.
> > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since
> > the
> > > >>>> cache
> > > >>>>> size is too small to use.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable
> > enough
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache
> > infra
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
> > > >>>>> I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test
> in
> > > >>>> parallel
> > > >>>>> groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin
> > > >>>> condition,
> > > >>>>> we need to iterate and improve it further.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the
> > > >> jenkins
> > > >>>> cpp
> > > >>>>> job and then further along move the unit test and integration
> test
> > > >>>> workflow
> > > >>>>> as they stabilize.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Ali, Xiaolong,
Instead of waiting for the whole pull request to pass, how about adding
those go unit tests and code style verification as new Github Action?
So we can start moving towards Github Action.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Sijie
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:54 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely we launch 30 jobs in parallel per pr so it should not be a
> problem, once we finish migration of current jobs we can start the process
> of adding new ones.
>
> -Ali
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:39 PM xiaolong ran <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Ali work for this, overall looks good to me.
> >
> > Currently, Jenkins does not check the unit tests and code specifications
> > related
> > to Go, as follows:
> >
> > - pulsar-client-go
> > - pulsar-functions-go
> >
> >
> > In GitHub action CI. Can we consider integrating them?
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774 <
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Xiaolong Ran
> >
> >
> >
> > > 在 2019年12月3日，上午8:52，Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> 写道：
> > >
> > > Here is PIP document
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13QKvfTj4-AMt3j7JTSE7LcyiXBK0Z0EGzp5HgMwpoj4/edit#
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Without a PIP, the knowledge scatters out into many different places
> and
> > >> many different conversations.
> > >> a PIP is better since other people in the community can participate in
> > the
> > >> development if they are interested in helping this.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - Sijie
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a
> > core
> > >>> stable base which we can activate as a checkin condition.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642/files#diff-00053b72be028281c6f9a446fbf91ef5
> > >>>
> > >>> The unstable tests will be need to rewritten before being removed
> from
> > >>> exclusion we have benefits of dedicated machines for testing in
> github
> > so
> > >>> we can give dedicated ports an an example to avoid contention.
> > >>> This should take about a week a two or work.
> > >>>
> > >>> Integration tests are a bigger issue I don't think we can stabilize
> the
> > >>> current tests easily, we probably want to reorg things, move
> > >>> external elements like spark, storm, flink and various io connectors
> > in a
> > >>> different module so we have lighter test load that we can harden
> > against
> > >>> failures.
> > >>>
> > >>> I can compile this into a PIP if community want's that.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Ali
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:37 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Ali,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see
> what
> > >> is
> > >>>> the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration tests.
> > >>>> In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java
> unit
> > >>>> tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal
> into
> > >>>> a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Sijie
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hello everyone ,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to
> > >>> vote
> > >>>> on
> > >>>>> the transition plan.
> > >>>>> Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
> > >>>>> contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do
> > >> experiments.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It
> has
> > >>>>> additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since
> the
> > >>>> cache
> > >>>>> size is too small to use.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable
> enough
> > >> to
> > >>>>> swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache
> infra
> > >> to
> > >>>>> disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
> > >>>>> I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in
> > >>>> parallel
> > >>>>> groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin
> > >>>> condition,
> > >>>>> we need to iterate and improve it further.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the
> > >> jenkins
> > >>>> cpp
> > >>>>> job and then further along move the unit test and integration test
> > >>>> workflow
> > >>>>> as they stabilize.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>.
Absolutely we launch 30 jobs in parallel per pr so it should not be a
problem, once we finish migration of current jobs we can start the process
of adding new ones.
-Ali
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:39 PM xiaolong ran <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Ali work for this, overall looks good to me.
>
> Currently, Jenkins does not check the unit tests and code specifications
> related
> to Go, as follows:
>
> - pulsar-client-go
> - pulsar-functions-go
>
>
> In GitHub action CI. Can we consider integrating them?
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774 <
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Xiaolong Ran
>
>
>
> > 在 2019年12月3日，上午8:52，Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > Here is PIP document
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13QKvfTj4-AMt3j7JTSE7LcyiXBK0Z0EGzp5HgMwpoj4/edit#
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Without a PIP, the knowledge scatters out into many different places and
> >> many different conversations.
> >> a PIP is better since other people in the community can participate in
> the
> >> development if they are interested in helping this.
> >>
> >>
> >> - Sijie
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a
> core
> >>> stable base which we can activate as a checkin condition.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642/files#diff-00053b72be028281c6f9a446fbf91ef5
> >>>
> >>> The unstable tests will be need to rewritten before being removed from
> >>> exclusion we have benefits of dedicated machines for testing in github
> so
> >>> we can give dedicated ports an an example to avoid contention.
> >>> This should take about a week a two or work.
> >>>
> >>> Integration tests are a bigger issue I don't think we can stabilize the
> >>> current tests easily, we probably want to reorg things, move
> >>> external elements like spark, storm, flink and various io connectors
> in a
> >>> different module so we have lighter test load that we can harden
> against
> >>> failures.
> >>>
> >>> I can compile this into a PIP if community want's that.
> >>>
> >>> -Ali
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:37 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ali,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see what
> >> is
> >>>> the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration tests.
> >>>> In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java unit
> >>>> tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal into
> >>>> a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Sijie
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello everyone ,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to
> >>> vote
> >>>> on
> >>>>> the transition plan.
> >>>>> Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
> >>>>> contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do
> >> experiments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It has
> >>>>> additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since the
> >>>> cache
> >>>>> size is too small to use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable enough
> >> to
> >>>>> swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache infra
> >> to
> >>>>> disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
> >>>>> I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in
> >>>> parallel
> >>>>> groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin
> >>>> condition,
> >>>>> we need to iterate and improve it further.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the
> >> jenkins
> >>>> cpp
> >>>>> job and then further along move the unit test and integration test
> >>>> workflow
> >>>>> as they stabilize.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by xiaolong ran <ra...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Ali work for this, overall looks good to me.
Currently, Jenkins does not check the unit tests and code specifications related
to Go, as follows:
- pulsar-client-go
- pulsar-functions-go
In GitHub action CI. Can we consider integrating them?
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774 <https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774>
--
Thanks
Xiaolong Ran
> 在 2019年12月3日，上午8:52，Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Here is PIP document
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13QKvfTj4-AMt3j7JTSE7LcyiXBK0Z0EGzp5HgMwpoj4/edit#
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Without a PIP, the knowledge scatters out into many different places and
>> many different conversations.
>> a PIP is better since other people in the community can participate in the
>> development if they are interested in helping this.
>>
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a core
>>> stable base which we can activate as a checkin condition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642/files#diff-00053b72be028281c6f9a446fbf91ef5
>>>
>>> The unstable tests will be need to rewritten before being removed from
>>> exclusion we have benefits of dedicated machines for testing in github so
>>> we can give dedicated ports an an example to avoid contention.
>>> This should take about a week a two or work.
>>>
>>> Integration tests are a bigger issue I don't think we can stabilize the
>>> current tests easily, we probably want to reorg things, move
>>> external elements like spark, storm, flink and various io connectors in a
>>> different module so we have lighter test load that we can harden against
>>> failures.
>>>
>>> I can compile this into a PIP if community want's that.
>>>
>>> -Ali
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:37 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ali,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
>>>>
>>>> I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see what
>> is
>>>> the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration tests.
>>>> In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java unit
>>>> tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal into
>>>> a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sijie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone ,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to
>>> vote
>>>> on
>>>>> the transition plan.
>>>>> Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
>>>>> contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do
>> experiments.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It has
>>>>> additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
>>>>>
>>>>> They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since the
>>>> cache
>>>>> size is too small to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable enough
>> to
>>>>> swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache infra
>> to
>>>>> disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
>>>>> I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in
>>>> parallel
>>>>> groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin
>>>> condition,
>>>>> we need to iterate and improve it further.
>>>>>
>>>>> In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the
>> jenkins
>>>> cpp
>>>>> job and then further along move the unit test and integration test
>>>> workflow
>>>>> as they stabilize.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>.
Here is PIP document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13QKvfTj4-AMt3j7JTSE7LcyiXBK0Z0EGzp5HgMwpoj4/edit#
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Without a PIP, the knowledge scatters out into many different places and
> many different conversations.
> a PIP is better since other people in the community can participate in the
> development if they are interested in helping this.
>
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a core
> > stable base which we can activate as a checkin condition.
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642/files#diff-00053b72be028281c6f9a446fbf91ef5
> >
> > The unstable tests will be need to rewritten before being removed from
> > exclusion we have benefits of dedicated machines for testing in github so
> > we can give dedicated ports an an example to avoid contention.
> > This should take about a week a two or work.
> >
> > Integration tests are a bigger issue I don't think we can stabilize the
> > current tests easily, we probably want to reorg things, move
> > external elements like spark, storm, flink and various io connectors in a
> > different module so we have lighter test load that we can harden against
> > failures.
> >
> > I can compile this into a PIP if community want's that.
> >
> > -Ali
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:37 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ali,
> > >
> > > Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
> > >
> > > I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see what
> is
> > > the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration tests.
> > > In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java unit
> > > tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal into
> > > a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sijie
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everyone ,
> > > >
> > > > I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to
> > vote
> > > on
> > > > the transition plan.
> > > > Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
> > > > contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do
> experiments.
> > > >
> > > > The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It has
> > > > additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
> > > >
> > > > They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since the
> > > cache
> > > > size is too small to use.
> > > >
> > > > From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable enough
> to
> > > > swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache infra
> to
> > > > disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
> > > > I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in
> > > parallel
> > > > groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin
> > > condition,
> > > > we need to iterate and improve it further.
> > > >
> > > > In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the
> jenkins
> > > cpp
> > > > job and then further along move the unit test and integration test
> > > workflow
> > > > as they stabilize.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Without a PIP, the knowledge scatters out into many different places and
many different conversations.
a PIP is better since other people in the community can participate in the
development if they are interested in helping this.
- Sijie
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a core
> stable base which we can activate as a checkin condition.
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642/files#diff-00053b72be028281c6f9a446fbf91ef5
>
> The unstable tests will be need to rewritten before being removed from
> exclusion we have benefits of dedicated machines for testing in github so
> we can give dedicated ports an an example to avoid contention.
> This should take about a week a two or work.
>
> Integration tests are a bigger issue I don't think we can stabilize the
> current tests easily, we probably want to reorg things, move
> external elements like spark, storm, flink and various io connectors in a
> different module so we have lighter test load that we can harden against
> failures.
>
> I can compile this into a PIP if community want's that.
>
> -Ali
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:37 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ali,
> >
> > Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
> >
> > I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see what is
> > the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration tests.
> > In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java unit
> > tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal into
> > a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sijie
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone ,
> > >
> > > I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to
> vote
> > on
> > > the transition plan.
> > > Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
> > > contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do experiments.
> > >
> > > The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It has
> > > additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
> > >
> > > They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since the
> > cache
> > > size is too small to use.
> > >
> > > From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable enough to
> > > swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache infra to
> > > disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
> > > I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in
> > parallel
> > > groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin
> > condition,
> > > we need to iterate and improve it further.
> > >
> > > In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the jenkins
> > cpp
> > > job and then further along move the unit test and integration test
> > workflow
> > > as they stabilize.
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com>.
Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a core
stable base which we can activate as a checkin condition.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642/files#diff-00053b72be028281c6f9a446fbf91ef5
The unstable tests will be need to rewritten before being removed from
exclusion we have benefits of dedicated machines for testing in github so
we can give dedicated ports an an example to avoid contention.
This should take about a week a two or work.
Integration tests are a bigger issue I don't think we can stabilize the
current tests easily, we probably want to reorg things, move
external elements like spark, storm, flink and various io connectors in a
different module so we have lighter test load that we can harden against
failures.
I can compile this into a PIP if community want's that.
-Ali
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:37 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ali,
>
> Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
>
> I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see what is
> the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration tests.
> In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java unit
> tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal into
> a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
>
> Thanks,
> Sijie
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone ,
> >
> > I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to vote
> on
> > the transition plan.
> > Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
> > contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do experiments.
> >
> > The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It has
> > additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
> >
> > They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since the
> cache
> > size is too small to use.
> >
> > From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable enough to
> > swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache infra to
> > disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
> > I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in
> parallel
> > groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin
> condition,
> > we need to iterate and improve it further.
> >
> > In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the jenkins
> cpp
> > job and then further along move the unit test and integration test
> workflow
> > as they stabilize.
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Github action migration plan
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Ali,
Thank you for driving this. Overall looks good.
I am fine with most of the proposal. However I would like to see what is
the plan to migrate the remaining java tests and integration tests.
In your current email, there are a lot of unknowns regarding java unit
tests and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal into
a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
Thanks,
Sijie
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone ,
>
> I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to vote on
> the transition plan.
> Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
> contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do experiments.
>
> The first version of the github actions ci is ready to merge. It has
> additional benefits that it won't trigger on documentation changes.
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5642
>
> They were things tried but removed like caching artifacts, since the cache
> size is too small to use.
>
> From the current jobs in the workflow the cpp tests is stable enough to
> swap with the jenkins one we can merge this and request apache infra to
> disable the cpp jenkins job requirement.
> I am experimenting with running unit tests and integration test in parallel
> groups with subset of tests. It's not ready yet to be a checkin condition,
> we need to iterate and improve it further.
>
> In summary the goal is to merge the current pr as is, swap the jenkins cpp
> job and then further along move the unit test and integration test workflow
> as they stabilize.
>