Sebastian, the practice of recent days shows something completely different. Without CI coverage, compilation errors become common. Building all the configurations locally to verify the changes will take ages on most machines, and building for different host OSes is often not possible for users.
With such a complex project as NuttX, with many Kconfig options and dependencies, such a trivial thing as breaking the compilation is a HUGE problem. Take all the NuttX features, multiply them across all the architectures and boards and you have a project that is impossible to track without automation and with such a small team. If you could propose a better solution (and implement it), everyone would be happy. Until then, we have what we have and it doesn't look like it will get any better. Although verification of simple changes has been greatly improved recently thanks to Lup, so one-line PRs affecting certain parts of the OS (like boards and archs) should be much faster to verify. śr., 23 paź 2024 o 10:06 Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> napisał(a): > Hi, > > Maybe I'm not the only one thinking that more than 6 hours of build > checks for one-liner pull requests is excessive? > > More so when said hours of work test nothing of the actual effect of > these changes. > > :):):) > > Sebastien > > > On 22/10/2024 15:49, Alan C. Assis wrote: > > Hi Nathan, > > > > Thank you for the link. I don't know if this Pulsar will alleviate the CI > > actions limitation that we are facing. > > > > I think someone from Apache needs to answer these questions Lup raised > > here: > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/14376#issuecomment-2428107029 > > > > "Why are all ASF Projects subjected to the same quotas? And why can't we > > increase the quota if we happen to have additional funding?" > > > > Many projects are not using it at all and still have the same quote that > > NuttX (the 5th most active project under Apache umbrella). > > > > I remember Greg said that when moving to Apache we will have all the > > resources we were looking for a long time, like: CI, hardware test > > integration, funding for our events, travel assistance, etc. > > > > BR, > > > > Alan > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:18 AM Nathan Hartman < > hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> The following email was posted to builds@ today and might contain > >> something > >> relevant to reducing our GitHub runners? Forwarded message below... > >> > >> [1] > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/pnvt9b80dnovlqmrf5n10ylcf9q3pcxq > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >> From: Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> > >> Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 7:08 AM > >> Subject: Sharing Apache Pulsar's CI solution for Docker image sharing > with > >> GitHub Actions Artifacts within a single workflow > >> To: <bui...@apache.org> > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Just in case it's useful for someone else, in Apache Pulsar, there's a > >> GitHub Actions-based CI workflow that creates a Docker image and runs > >> integration tests and system tests with it. In Pulsar, we have an > extremely > >> large Docker image for system tests; it's over 1.7GiB when compressed > with > >> zstd. Building this image takes over 20 minutes, so we want to share the > >> image within a single build workflow. GitHub Artifacts are the > recommended > >> way to share files between jobs in a single workflow, as explained in > the > >> GitHub Actions documentation: > >> > >> > https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-what-your-workflow-does/storing-and-sharing-data-from-a-workflow > >> . > >> > >> To share the Docker image within a single build workflow, we use GitHub > >> Artifacts upload/download with a custom CLI tool that uses the > >> GitHub-provided JavaScript libraries for interacting with the GitHub > >> Artifacts backend API. The benefit of the CLI tool for GitHub Actions > >> Artifacts is that it can upload from stdin and download to stdout. > Sharing > >> the Docker images in the GitHub Actions workflow is simply done with the > >> CLI tool and standard "docker load" and "docker save" commands. > >> > >> These are the shell script functions that Apache Pulsar uses: > >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/1344167328c31ea39054ec2a6019f003fb8bab50/build/pulsar_ci_tool.sh#L82-L101 > >> > >> In Pulsar CI, the command for saving the image is: > >> docker save ${image} | zstd | pv -ft -i 5 | pv -Wbaf -i 5 | timeout 20m > >> gh-actions-artifact-client.js upload > >> --retentionDays=$ARTIFACT_RETENTION_DAYS "${artifactname}" > >> > >> For restoring, the command used is: > >> timeout 20m gh-actions-artifact-client.js download "${artifactname}" | > pv > >> -batf -i 5 | unzstd | docker load > >> > >> The throughput is very impressive. Transfer speed can exceed 180MiB/s > when > >> uploading the Docker image, and downloads are commonly over 100MiB/s in > >> apache/pulsar builds. It's notable that the transfer includes the > execution > >> of "docker load" and "docker save" since it's directly operating on > stdin > >> and stdout. > >> Examples: > >> upload: > >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/actions/runs/11454093832/job/31880154863#step:15:26 > >> download: > >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/actions/runs/11454093832/job/31880164467#step:9:20 > >> > >> Since GitHub Artifacts doesn't provide an official CLI tool, I have > written > >> a GitHub Action for that purpose. It's available at > >> https://github.com/lhotari/gh-actions-artifact-client. > >> When you use the action, it will install the CLI tool available as > >> "gh-actions-artifact-client.js" in the PATH of the runner so that it's > >> available in subsequent build steps. In Apache Pulsar, we fork external > >> actions to our own repository, so we use the version forked to > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra. > >> > >> In Pulsar, we have been using this solution successfully for several > years. > >> I recently upgraded the action to support the GitHub Actions Artifacts > API > >> v4, as earlier API versions will be removed after November 30th. > >> > >> I hope this helps other projects that face similar CI challenges as > Pulsar > >> has. Please let me know if you need any help in using a similar solution > >> for your Apache project's CI. > >> > >> -Lari > >> > >> (end of forwarded message) > >> > >> WDYT? Relevant to us? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Nathan > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 2:10 AM Lee, Lup Yuen <lu...@appkaki.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi All: We have an ultimatum to reduce (drastically) our usage of > GitHub > >>> Actions. Or our Continuous Integration will halt totally in Two Weeks. > >>> Here's what I'll implement within 24 hours for `nuttx` and `nuttx-apps` > >>> repos: > >>> > >>> (1) When we submit or update a Complex PR that affects All > Architectures > >>> (Arm, RISC-V, Xtensa, etc): CI Workflow shall run only half the jobs. > >>> Previously CI Workflow will run `arm-01` to `arm-14`, now we will run > >> only > >>> `arm-01` to `arm-07`. (This will reduce GitHub Cost by 32%) > >>> > >>> (2) When the Complex PR is Merged: CI Workflow will still run all jobs > >>> `arm-01` to `arm-14` > >>> > >>> (3) For NuttX Admins: We shall have only Four Scheduled Merge Jobs per > >> day. > >>> Which means I shall quickly cancel any Merge Jobs that appear. Then at > >>> 00:00 / 06:00 / 12:00 / 18:00 UTC: I shall restart the Latest Merge Job > >>> that I cancelled. (This will reduce GitHub Cost by 17%) > >>> > >>> (4) macOS and Windows Jobs (msys2 / msvc): They shall be totally > disabled > >>> until we find a way to manage their costs. (GitHub charges 10x premium > >> for > >>> macOS runners, 2x premium for Windows runners!) > >>> > >>> We have done an Analysis of CI Jobs over the past 24 hours: > >>> > >>> - Many CI Jobs are Incomplete: We waste GitHub Runners on jobs that > >>> eventually get superseded and cancelled > >>> > >>> - When we Half the CI Jobs: We reduce the wastage of GitHub Runners > >>> > >>> - Scheduled Merge Jobs will also reduce wastage of GitHub Runners, > since > >>> most Merge Jobs don't complete (only 1 completed yesterday) > >>> > >>> Please check out the analysis below. And let's discuss further in this > >>> NuttX Issue. Thanks! > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/14376 > >>> > >>> Lup > >>> > >>> > >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >>>>> From: Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> > >>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:08 PM > >>>>> Subject: [WARNING] All NuttX builds to be turned off by October 30th > >>>>> UNLESS... > >>>>> To: <priv...@nuttx.apache.org> > >>>>> Cc: ASF Infrastructure <priv...@infra.apache.org> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello again, NuttX folks. > >>>>> This is a formal notice that your CI builds are far exceeding the > >>>>> maximum resource use set out by our CI policies[1]. As you are > >> currently > >>>>> exceeding your limits by more than 300%[2] and have not shown any > >> signs > >>>>> of decreasing, we will be disabling GitHub Actions for your project > on > >>>>> October 30th unless you manage to get the usage under control and > >> below > >>>>> the established limits of 25 full-time runners in a single week. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you have any further questions, feel free to reach out to us at > >>>>> priv...@infra.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>>> With regards, > >>>>> Daniel on behalf of ASF Infra. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://infra.apache.org/github-actions-policy.html > >>>>> [2] https://infra-reports.apache.org/#ghactions&project=nuttx > >>>>> > >> >
