gtristan commented on code in PR #2005:
URL: https://github.com/apache/buildstream/pull/2005#discussion_r2113871052
##########
tests/integration/cachedfail.py:
##########
@@ -514,3 +425,61 @@ def generate_target():
# Assert that it's no longer cached, and returns to a buildable state
assert cli.get_element_state(project, "target.bst") == "buildable"
+
+
+# Test that we do not keep scheduling builds after one build fails
+# with `--builders 1` and `--on-error quit`.
+#
+# Note that this depends on staging order (which is stable and a part of cache
key calculation),
Review Comment:
> It seems that CI disagrees with this statement :) I also think that the
order isn't deterministic, given the scheduler queues and threads and whatnot.
Staging order is definitely deterministic, and it is required to be, because
the dependency order is considered in cache key calculation (recently @juergbi
fixed an issue with this, due to newer python having different sort techniques).
The build order seems to not follow staging order to the tee, I would've
expected it to when specifying `--builders 1` though... lemme look into this :-/
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
