> On 24 Feb 2016, at 11:21, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 24 Feb 2016, at 11:09, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here’s an idea: >> >> 1. exclude Zinc tests from the validation tests >> 2. after the build, trigger a Travis build on Github via API (I just set >> that up for Fuel, so I can provide help there) >> 3. the Travis build only runs the Zinc tests >> 4. read build results from Travis >> >> Very ugly, I know. But it’s done rather quickly and should solve all the >> network problems. > > I don't think the current problem is severe enough to put much work in it, > right now. > > But would it not be much better to run everything (all tests) on Travis ? > > At first, maybe just as a limited experiment ? I would love to see that.
Sure. That wouldn’t be hard (although I think support for Windows is missing for the Smalltalk language, but I’m sure Fabio Niephaus would help us out there). We could use the Jenkins job as a trigger (or create a second job for experimenting first). In the long run, we probably would want to use the push / pull request hook to trigger the build but for quickly hacking things together I suggest using the API trigger. I don’t have enough permissions on Github and Jenkins to pull this off alone but I’d be happy to help setting up the Travis stuff and providing the trigger script. > >> Max >> >>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 11:01, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The problem is that managing a CI server for a project like Pharo would be >>> one full time engineer in a company, we do not have the manpower. >>> >>> So we need to find solutions that are cheap to do. >>> >>>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 10:50, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Maybe there can be a pre-test run at the shell level to flag that the >>>> required network connectivity is available to run that test inside the >>>> image. Pharo startup could read them in while starting. >>>> cheers -ben >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> one idea could be to add this to the filter of the CI runner. >>>>> >>>>> It seems it fails due to network setup problems that are specific to the >>>>> CI server... >>>>> >>>>>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 09:07, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The following test seems to be failing a lot lately on the CI >>>>>> infrastructure, yet it always succeeds for me on my machine. Is there >>>>>> anybody who sees this fail on their machines ? >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 08:36, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-5.0-Update-Step-2.1-Validation-M-Z/label=mac/755/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 regressions found. >>>>>>> Zinc.Zodiac.ZnHTTPSTests.testAmazonAWS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
