“Diet” builds for commits are taking about 70 minutes…Full builds with tags are taking about 115 minutes.
Maybe once I get the GUI and WATs running, we can add some cores to the box and parralellize the builds so they dont take so long
2 cores build the workstation, 2 cores build the gateway or something like that
Now that we have CI for commits and tags, I am going to work on having WATS run every time a tag is pushed…then I will work on making WATS more robust
Planning to try to get some of that automated testing fired up this weekend. I might make a new repo based off the fork you have in your github @Patrick…will research more and hopefully get ya some automated tag testing built in in the not too distant future
@Patrick has the CI been useful for you yet? feedback/criticism is welcome
Extremely useful! Very good contribution. Now I am confident I didn’t break the build since I would get an e-mail if something is broken (something as simple as a forgotten git push). Also a good feeling to have a different, more picky build environment to know other stuff such as the mount related stuff is solid.
Could you please update from
I think (could def be wrong) this should pretty much work out of the box. I dynamically set all the URLs with built in github environment variables. Maybe allow github actions on the new repo, and push a dummy tag, then I can look at the logs if something breaks?? For now it all seems okay, at least when I run
grep -irn 'derivative' ./automated_builder I don’t see anything that should be problematic or break
working on getting a fork of WATS running today
Woot woot! It is running !!!
Now I have some cleaning up to do, then will get it to run via CI next, when tags are built
I am wondering if we should keep the per commit building. At the moment I am pushing lots of commits for live-build (ISO) development. Those won’t influence VM builds. We could save some expenses for the CI server by not wasting builds. Build from tags should be enough for now.
I think it is good to have CI run any time a commit is pushed. CI server costs are very small even with lots of commits currently being pushed. I am spending around $5 USD a month on CI, which is totally fine with me.
Benefits of CI running any time a commit is pushed is fast feedback if something breaks the build, rather than compounding issues. For $5 I am happy to donate every month so you can have the information readily available.
I think currently since CI isn’t being used for GUI testing, I can cut that number in half to about $2.50 a month by resizing droplet. I plan to overhaul all this work eventually. It is on the horizon
All that to say, I do not think builds are “wasted” when they pass