I wasn't able to continue with FLIP-396 [1] and didn't have the time to finish off FLINK-33901 [2]. Whoever wants to help out with that effort can pick up the subtasks in FLINK-33901 [2]. I tried to document all the things in the individual tickets. I'm happy to answer questions around that topic.
There is a kind-of blocker with FLINK-34331 [3] if we want to switch to Apache INFRA's ephemeral runners. But that could be handled independently, I guess. To answer your questions: 1) There have been a few discussions initiated offline to pick up the work. But so far, this didn't result in the GHA work making progress. 2) As said above: You can go ahead and continue working on FLIP-396 [1]. The FLIP's ML discussion marks the current state of the community's view on it as far as I know. 3) Functionality-wise that should be fine: GHA utilizes the same scripts the Azure pipeline uses. Best, Matthias [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-396%3A+Trial+to+test+GitHub+Actions+as+an+alternative+for+Flink%27s+current+Azure+CI+infrastructure [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33901 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-34331 On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 2:21 PM Tom Cooper <c...@tomcooper.dev> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was hoping to sync up on the progress on moving from Azure CI to GitHub > Actions for the main Flink repository. There was FLIP-396 [1] by Matthias > Pohl detailing the plan to trial GitHub Actions and FLINK-27075 [2] which > tracks the work. There are several workflows in the repo already and > actions do seem to be running [3]. The FLIP mentions the 1.19 release as > the watershed for deciding if we move off Azure CI. As we are now nearly at > 2.0, I wondered if there has been anymore discussion on this? > > My main motivation for asking is that, as part of Community Health > Initiative (CHI) Workgroup [4], we have been looking at how to further > speed up/simplify PR reviews. One of the main issues with reviews is that > the PR has failed to pass the CI tests and in many cases that will be > something simple like a failure of the checkstyle/spotless checks. However, > to find that out you need to click through several layers of Azure CI UI > and parse the test logs. > > It would be useful if we could run these standard linting checks for every > PR before the main CI is run and make that clearly visible to the submitter > on the PR via the GH CI UI integration (green ticks or red crosses with a > clear reason). GitHub Actions seems like a perfect fit for this and indeed > we already have a workflow for pre-compile checks [5] that would perform > this. However, that workflow does not run on pull requests. > > So I was wondering: > > 1) Has there been a discussion on moving forward with the move to GH > Actions? > 2) If the process has stalled due to a lack of developer time, then the > CHI members are willing to help but we may need context/help from those > previously involved. > 3) As a minimum, would we be able to enable the pre-compile checks for all > PRs? > > Thanks, > > Tom Cooper > @tomcooper.dev | https://tomcooper.dev > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-396%3A+Trial+to+test+GitHub+Actions+as+an+alternative+for+Flink%27s+current+Azure+CI+infrastructure > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-27075 > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink/actions > [4] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Community+Health+Initiative+%28CHI%29+workgroup > [5] > https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/.github/workflows/template.pre-compile-checks.yml >
