Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[travis][ci] launch core and extras if CI run successful #3214

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[travis][ci] launch core and extras if CI run successful #3214

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

truthbk
Copy link
Member

@truthbk truthbk commented Feb 23, 2017 •
edited
Loading

What does this PR do?

This PR will run the SDK repos CI if we have a successful test run (maybe it should run always, regardless).

Motivation

During the SDK transition we have moved the checks to the core and extras repositories. These are somewhat coupled to dd-agent, so we must ensure we launch the tests in their respective CI's after changes are made here.

Testing Guidelines

An overview on testing
is available in our contribution guidelines.

Additional Notes

Anything else we should know when reviewing?

@truthbk truthbk force-pushed the jaime/triggerci branch 2 times, most recently from 8b56584 to 745aafa Compare February 23, 2017 22:16
@truthbk
[travis][ci] launch core and extras if merge successful
0883ba4 
[rakefile] fix repo names.

[travis] can we do without the matrix.

[travis] use uri path to create post object.

[travis] removing test branch
@truthbk truthbk added this to the 5.12.0 milestone Feb 23, 2017
truthbk
truthbk commented Feb 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
.travis.yml
- ls -al $INTEGRATIONS_DIR

after_success:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we do this after every run (failed or not)? This should not run with PR's so it's not something that will clobber our CI in the SDK repos (and CI activity in the dd-agent should come way down anyway, so it shouldn't be too bad).

@gmmeyer gmmeyer requested a review from degemer March 6, 2017 19:41
@degemer
Copy link
Member

degemer commented Mar 7, 2017

I like the idea behind the PR, however I think we should to do it another way.
I see 3 possible cases:

  • I open a PR and I know it's potentially breaking core/extra, then I'll check by myself.
  • I open a PR that doesn't break core/extra, then nothing to do.
  • (the case this PR was made for) I open a PR not knowing that it's going to break core/extra. CI is ✅ , and I won't check core/extra CI. CI is 🔴 on core/extra master, but we don't check that very often. A new PR is created on core/extra, CI is 🔴 , we have a look and we determine (hopefully easily?) it's my previous PR.

Pros:

  • we can check easily when core/extra broke and track it down to dd-agent (assuming tests are not too flaky).
    Cons:
  • it slows the dd-agent CI (by ~2min)
  • it slows the entire CI (by triggering a lot more integrations-core builds); as you said the volume of dd-agent changes should go way down, so it might not be a real issue.

I think that being really careful about changes in utils/ could be enough (and catching the rest with usual CI on core/extra), and that we don't have a lot to win by triggering a CI that doesn't fail the CI on PRs.

Let me know what you think, I don't really have a solution. Maybe use the new Travis cron feature daily - https://travis-ci.org/DataDog/integrations-core/settings ?

@olivielpeau olivielpeau removed this from the 5.12.0 milestone Mar 27, 2017
@olivielpeau olivielpeau assigned truthbk and unassigned degemer Aug 8, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@degemer degemer Awaiting requested review from degemer

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@truthbk truthbk

Labels
dev/tooling
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@truthbk @degemer @olivielpeau