Egor Pasko wrote: > On the 0x54C day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote: >> Egor Pasko wrote: >>> On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote: >>>> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some >>>> more visible build and test projects there. >>>> >>>> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send mail >>>> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails. >>>> >>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/ >>> Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches >>> on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim! >>> >>>> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity >>>> testing cycle. >>> I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it >>> mean this is done already? >> It's still work in progress, but yes, just about done. >> >> I enhanced the 'build' job to include a very basic test (at this point >> it just runs the pack200 Junit tests. This is to ensure that not only >> the build completes successfully, but that it also runs a very simple >> set of 'sniff' tests. >> >> I'm open to suggestions about what the sniff tests should be, but they >> should take next to no time at all to run after the build completes. > > 'sniff' testing in basic build is a good idea. And I guess pack200 > unit tests should be just the right amount to be next to no time. > >> Once the short integration testing is working I'll redirect failures to >> the alerts list too, and schedule that to run frequently (being mindful >> that we are on a shared machine resource). Then I'll move on to running >> longer tests, etc. etc. > > cool, ehwa running is already very useful
I'm still struggling with the BTI, trying to adapt it to do the right thing. >>> Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more >>> platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others >>> feel that we are wasting machine resources? >> AFAIK there is not a wide range of machine architectures available as >> Hudson build machines. I will discuss with the infra team what we can >> get available. > > we could build and run a 32 bit binary on an x86_64 machine, but that > is likely a pain to set up our BTI for this. Is there support for > virtual machines? :) I believe they are hosting them as virtual hosts already, so it is a case of asking for other architectures to be made available. I wanted to get a basic build / test going on one machine first. >> I think we can use more resources on the current machine if you can >> think of other configurations you want to run. > > It might be helpful to build release configuration so that users are > able to pick new binary snapshots anytime. (this would sound very > cool: "We don't have fresh 32 bit binaries, try our x86_64 builds). The builds are in release mode by default anyway. The latest good build is available at... http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/job/Harmony-1.5-head-linux-x86_64/lastSuccessfulBuild/ > Since DRLVM is not in a very active development we may save resources > and take DRLVM binary from the latest binary release. Rebuilding it is no problem. > I'll be glad to also find 2 runtime configurations in testing (client > and server). But .. not very critical. I'll bear it in mind once I am running tests. Regards, Tim
