[Qgis-psc] Handling the Travis CI situation

Thu Jan 28 14:11:10 PST 2021

Any reason we can't just vote on it here on teh ML Marco?

I am +1 to invest the money to pay the crack team to fix the tests. If
Microsoft ever shafts us we can consider moving to a self hosted Jenkins
(my preference) or that thing that Sandro mentioned, but at least we will
have a working suite.

Regards

Tim

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:53 PM Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 23:59, Marco Bernasocchi <marco at qgis.org> wrote:
> >
> > thanks everyone for the all the information and feedback, it was really
> helpful in preparing the budget proposal.
>
> Can I ask what the status on this request is? Travis has become
> completely unworkable over the last week, with new jobs taking 10hrs+
> to start, and then failing instantly because of the docker limits.
> It's really slowing down the bug fixing efforts, and I fear that if it
> degrades any further we'll be forced to just turn off Travis and as a
> result have NO regression testing protecting the QGIS codebase! argh
> :O
>
> Nyall
>
>
>
>
> >
> > cheers Marco
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020, 10:40 Alessandro Pasotti, <apasotti at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Great, thanks!
> >>
> >> You've done a really good job there.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:20 AM Denis Rouzaud <denis.rouzaud at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Le lun. 9 nov. 2020 à 09:06, Alessandro Pasotti <apasotti at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 12:55 AM Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 20:57, Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch>
> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This would be desirable.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It's unfortunately a bit of complexity included. As Alessandro
> said, the rendering tests are a good example of tests which are hard to
> maintain and - unfortunately - not well defined functions like we happen to
> have on e.g. database engine unit tests.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > To recall, when we started with CI some 5 years ago we were in
> the situation that we had a set of tests, which randomly passed on some dev
> machines and some on others. So effectively you had no chance to know if a
> test doesn't pass because of your machine or your patch.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > At least now we have a reference platform and know if a patch
> actually does cause changes. Which is the most important information.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Currently many of the tests are already cross platform. And
> nobody is actively writing CI centric tests. It's just a matter of fact
> that the tests have a requirement to at least pass on the CI env because
> it's the only thing that can be enforced.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > When tests are updated to a new platform (ci or not), many of
> them will pass on a wider variety of platforms. Because bugs are fixed or
> they are made more generic. And some will just have reference images for
> one more platform added.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So whatever we do we will do a step into the right direction.
> But there will be no guarantee that every test passes on your machine
> except if you make them all pass on your machine - which would be very
> welcome!!
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > What you could also do is listing tests that are generic /
> platform independent (e.g. the expression tests would be a very good
> example) and then always just run these instead of the whole set of tests.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just to add a few extra thoughts to the already comprehensive
> replies
> >> >> > given by Matthias and Denis:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - we had to do a very similar effort with updating existing tests
> when
> >> >> > we moved from Qt 4 -> Qt 5. We'll probably have to do another
> similar
> >> >> > effort in another 18-24 months or so. It's going to be a regular,
> >> >> > recurring task to go through and update all the tests which have
> been
> >> >> > introduced since the previous effort and ensure that they are
> >> >> > sufficiently tolerant to pass under different environments/software
> >> >> > versions. (Maybe we should consider adding "test maintenance" as a
> >> >> > regular yearly expense of the nature of 1.5 weeks?)
> >> >> > - we really should do a similar effort to get the existing tests
> >> >> > passing under mac os and windows too. I suspect there's some valid
> >> >> > bugs that the test suites would reveal if we could reliably run
> them
> >> >> > under windows/mac, but the real issues are drowned in the noise of
> >> >> > tests which haven't been designed to be cross platform compatible.
> >> >> > (This could be a good grant proposal idea for future funding
> rounds!)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And then my personal 2c:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We have a great test suite, and fantastic tools for making and
> >> >> > managing tests. Sure, there's a learning curve involved with them.
> >> >> > Sure, they ARE different to the test suites used by gdal, or geos,
> or
> >> >> > <insert other project here>. But that's just business as usual in
> >> >> > software development, and not at all reflective of inferiority in
> the
> >> >> > test suites. Can we please move on from this recurring point once
> and
> >> >> > for all and focus on the current relevant parts of this discussion
> >> >> > instead?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nyall
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> While I agree on all points, there is one important thing that we
> >> >> should make it better while we work on it:
> >> >> make sure the test suite can **easily** run locally using the same
> >> >> docker images we are using in the CI process, I can do it but I
> cannot
> >> >> say it was easy to set up and it's probably overly complicated for
> >> >> most people.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The new github workflow is far more simple and easier to read than
> the travis config.
> >> > Everything is in one file and should be easily replicable.
> >> >
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/blob/test-focal/.github/workflows/run-tests.yml#L101-L124
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, making the test suite independent from the particular CI we
> will
> >> >> use (GH workflows, Travis & C.) will make it easier to move it to
> >> >> another CI if needed.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It should!
> >> > Let's when we move the CI for 3.16 to Github: the base image will
> remain (bionic) and we shouldn't have anything to touch in the tests.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is of course also a matter of producing a good documentation for
> >> >> the process and the tools.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kind regards.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Alessandro Pasotti
> >> >> QCooperative:  www.qcooperative.net
> >> >> ItOpen:   www.itopen.it
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Qgis-psc mailing list
> >> >> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> >> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alessandro Pasotti
> >> QCooperative:  www.qcooperative.net
> >> ItOpen:   www.itopen.it
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Qgis-psc mailing list
> >> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-psc mailing list
> > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Sutton
Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
 * Desktop GIS programming services
 * Geospatial web development
* GIS Training
* Consulting Services
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20210128/bfd76fe9/attachment-0001.html>