Thank you so much for getting this working Oscar. The effective removal of the free tier by Travis was unexpected, so we had relatively little time to prepare and move to another system.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM Oscar Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We have just completed a migration from using Travis as our CI system > to using Github Actions. This was discussed in several issues and pull > requests but the main motivation is here: > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/20374 > > I don't know how long SymPy has been using Travis but they have given > us a fantastic service (free of charge) for many years. We should > definitely be thankful to them for the huge expense that they have > provided in CPU cycles that we have depended on as part of testing the > correctness of any proposed changes to the main SymPy codebase. > Travis' model for providing services to open source projects has > changed though and it does not look like the new version of their > service would be usable for SymPy. > > Although the main changes in Travis' service were due to kick in at > the end of 2020 it seems that they began winding down their provision > of the old service in advance of that which meant that we needed to > switch ASAP. Slowdowns in CI contributed to the delay of the 1.7 > release and then made it difficult to keep contributions to SymPy > ticking over after the release. > > The situation became urgent and there wasn't much time to discuss > possible alternatives to Travis but Github Actions seemed an obvious > choice so in the little time I had I built a new CI config for Actions > here: > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/blob/8b2b7e4c616677e054d01e997ab940b3150aa89d/.github/workflows/runtests.yml Indeed, if other CI systems seem better at some point in the future, we can investigate them (especially if someone is willing to write the build configuration file for it). > > Today I have disabled Travis from running on pull requests (it will > still run on the master branch after a PR is merged). I have also made > the Actions jobs "required" so that a PR can not be merged unless it > passes the tests on Github Actions. That mostly completes the > migration to Actions but I'm sure that there will be more teething > problems or things that I've missed. > > For a while now it may be necessary to close and reopen PRs when > reviewing to make sure they run under the new CI. Any PR that > previously failed on Travis will still show with a red "fail" cross > even if subsequent changes have fixed any errors (Travis will not run > again after changes now). The PR will be mergeable if the tests have > passed under Actions but it will still show as having "failed" in > Travis. This also applies to any of the most recently pushed PRs for > which I cancelled the Travis build (Github shows a cancelled Travis > build as having "failed"). I would also add that if a PR is obviously in need of changes, then it's not necessary to restart the tests, since any new commits that are pushed will automatically start the tests again anyway. > > In the short term when reviewing a PR: > 1) Close and open to rerun the tests under the new CI > 2) Ignore any report of failure from Travis > > Also could reviewers please pay careful attention to Actions and the > output of the different test jobs for a while? > > It is very likely that I have overlooked something in the migration so > that the codebase is not as rigorously tested as it was before and > some things that should fail might pass. This is why changes to CI are > risky and need careful review. There hasn't been as much time as I > would like to test out the new CI in parallel with the old. > > Finally having worked with both the Travis and Actions CI systems I > can say that I think this is an improvement in the long term. The > config format for Actions is significantly better (I hated editing the > .travis.yml and test_travis.sh files!) but also right now Actions are > giving us much more computing power than Travis ever did. We should > still focus on reducing the time taken to run the tests but it's good > that we now have a system that has more capacity to run our extremely > slow test suite. One downside to Actions compared to Travis that people should be aware of is that the logs for Actions builds are removed after 90 days. Thus, you shouldn't link to a GitHub actions log in an issue. If you need to reference a build log, you should copy the text of the log into the relevant issue, or into a gist if it is long. Aaron Meurer > > Oscar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxTUqPWFLxmgdCE-Pba1_n%2BNFTcX7kTA%2B3GU7B5Sv6prJg%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAKgW%3D6JLPgq1yaL4FtQ%2BCzCjObt_bX0VMcdLWP0XwOKC_S3r7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
