Yes, looks like ubuntu-16.04-build-only just runs buildall.sh. That't why I
want to add the check of Impala-lzo version in buildall.sh.
Since there're no other patches for 2.x now, I uploaded the next one:
https://gerrit.cloudera.org/c/12504/
We can run GVO on it with other patches of master branch concurrently for
tests.

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 2:04 AM Philip Zeyliger <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think this one is even trickier!
>
> https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ubuntu-16.04-build-only/5395/ doesn't seem
> to
> clone Impala-lzo at all! And, though we're trying to do everything in a
> tempdir, the imapla_lzo dir is
>
> IMPALA_LZO              = /home/ubuntu/tmp.CCVBRWuYra/../Impala-lzo
>
> My best guess is that a previous build has checked out Impala-lzo, and, if
> the build is re-using a Jenkins worker, it gets Impala-lzo. Otherwise, it
> doesn't.
>
> I have some evidence that we only sometimes build IMPALA_LZO in this job.
> This looks through the last 30 builds, and notices that some built
> impala-lzo and some didn't. Most of them passed...
>
> $for i in $(seq 5400 5430); do echo $i; curl --silent
> https://jenkins.impala.io/job/ubuntu-16.04-build-only/$i/consoleText |
> grep
> -i "Built target impala-lzo"; done
> 5400
> 5401
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5402
> 5403
> 5404
> 5405
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5406
> 5407
> 5408
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5409
> 5410
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5411
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5412
> 5413
> 5414
> 5415
> 5416
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5417
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5418
> 5419
> 5420
> 5421
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5422
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5423
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5424
> 5425
> 5426
> [100%] Built target impala-lzo
> 5427
> 5428
> 5429
> 5430
>
> I've added the following to the job:
>
> # Point IMPALA_LZO to a non-existant directory to avoid it being
> # built. (Otherwise, sharing of workers will sometimes find an old dir.)
> export IMPALA_LZO="$IMPALA_HOME/impala-lzo-not-checked-out"
>
> and am trying it out...
>
> -- Philip
>

Reply via email to