Yicong-Huang opened a new issue, #6318:
URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/issues/6318

   ### Task Summary
   
   The four sbt-based CI jobs — `amber`, `amber-integration`, `platform`, and 
`platform-integration` — each compile the shared common-module graph (DAO, 
WorkflowCore, WorkflowOperator, Auth, Config, …) from scratch. Across their 
matrices that is up to **14 runner legs** redoing the same Scala build on every 
run, wasting runner-minutes and risking build inconsistency.
   
   Proposal: add a single `scala-build` **prebuild** job that compiles the 
whole Scala world once (main + test scopes), runs the cross-cutting 
scalafmt/scalafix lints, and builds all dists, then uploads the compiled 
`target/` tree and the dist zips as artifacts. The downstream Scala jobs 
download and reuse them instead of recompiling — `amber` / `amber-integration` 
(Linux) / `platform` restore the compiled state for their `jacoco`/`test`, and 
`platform-integration` pulls just the dists for smoke-boot.
   
   Design constraints:
   - Respect the existing label gate: the prebuild runs only when at least one 
Scala stack is requested (union of `run_amber` / `run_amber_integration` / 
`run_platform` / `run_platform_integration`), so docs-only / frontend-only PRs 
never trigger it.
   - macOS `amber-integration` keeps self-compiling — Zinc analysis embeds 
OS-specific absolute paths and is not portable across runners.
   - Primary goal is **deduplicating compilation / cutting runner-minutes**; 
wall-clock is expected to stay roughly flat and will be measured against a 
baseline before committing to the approach.
   
   ### Task Type
   
   - [ ] Refactor / Cleanup
   - [x] DevOps / Deployment / CI
   - [ ] Testing / QA
   - [ ] Documentation
   - [ ] Performance
   - [ ] Other


-- 
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]

Reply via email to