[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: docker for CI
From: |
Dan Eble |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: docker for CI |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:48:16 -0500 |
On Feb 7, 2020, at 15:21, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> * use a headless browser to take a image snapshot of the top of regtest
>>> result page.
>>>
>> Sounds convoluted. Why not attach the difference images directly?
>
> Those are potentially 1372 images to attach if you made a change with global
> impact.
Why not attach the N images with the greatest differences directly?
More generally, I'd want a digest of the results (not all of which are visual)
that is as useful as possible for the size we are willing to post to the
review. We control output-distance.py, so we could generate something new that
fits this case.
>> Are full logs and test results retained, or does a developer need to
>> reproduce the test locally to get them?
>
> You'd retain the full logs and results as part of the docker image. Currently
> my checkout is about 1.8G of data, and a lilypond docker image itself would
> be close to that too.
This approach is new to me. I'm used to CI systems that are configured to
archive particular files from the workspace (e.g., the regtest output tree, the
final docs) and full build log for a limited time (days to weeks). I think it
balances the types of things you can investigate without reproducing the build
yourself against retaining a huge amount of data.
Can you expand on the purpose of saving the full Docker image--which is not
just the LilyPond workspace but the OS too, correct? Are you thinking that
someone would prefer to download it and debug in a container rather than
reproduce the build in their usual development environment?
—
Dan
Re: RFC: docker for CI, Kevin Barry, 2020/02/07
Re: RFC: docker for CI, Werner LEMBERG, 2020/02/07
Re: RFC: docker for CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/02/08