lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
Date Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:28:53 GMT
Thanks Prescott, sounds good.

One thing we can do is define what a successful build is -- right now I'm
using the traditional "stuff builds and all tests pass" but we are a long
ways away from "all tests pass". I could set it up to fail only when new
tests fail the tests which I've used for success in projects like this with
deep dev mode and thousands of failing tests to slog through. But I'm open
to suggestion as to how you all want this to work.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I see it, cant approve on my phone - will take care of it shortly
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Wyatt Barnett<mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> Sent: 12/17/2014 1:23 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
>
> Yeah -- looks like it is tc@codebetter.com; there is probably one waiting
> for moderator approval as I write as it appears the build completed 15
> minutes ago so if you got one the fake user should have been sent one.
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I can probably sign up a fake user - do the build emails always come from
> > the same address?
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > ________________________________
> > From: Itamar Syn-Hershko<mailto:itamar@code972.com>
> > Sent: 12/17/2014 12:43 PM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
> >
> > Yes - can you coordinate with Maarten on this please?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the answers -- I do agree that sounds like what is going on
> > with
> > > the tests. If you drill down a bit you can get the failure messages
> which
> > > read like race conditions -- like file access errors and such.
> > >
> > > The build trigger has been re-enabled so you should get a build with
> the
> > > next PR.
> > >
> > > To get the list notified we'd need to create a fake TC user for the
> list
> > > and then subscribe that to the project. Would that work?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> itamar@code972.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To answer your questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I think we can waive code coverage for now. Especially since we
> are
> > > > basically porting tests from Java Lucene and at this point code
> > coverage
> > > > will have no effect on our process.
> > > >
> > > > 2. This is probably a result of a race condition / test instability.
> I
> > > > don't think it has anything with which repo you read from, just the
> > core
> > > > instability of some of the moving parts.
> > > >
> > > > 3. "run after master branch has an update" is the way to go. Can you
> > set
> > > it
> > > > up to send notifications to the dev list please?
> > > >
> > > > I was referring to https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion but
> > for
> > > > now
> > > > we can keep with vanilla git flow / github flow
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone, sorry for the radio silence but we are getting very
> > close.
> > > > >
> > > > > The basic CI setup where we grab the latest and then run an
> automated
> > > > build
> > > > > and test was fairly easy to get worked out. But getting it running
> > > right
> > > > > has been a bit of a challenge. The main stumbling block the last
> few
> > > > weeks
> > > > > was that, if I ran the test suite locally, I was getting through it
> > in
> > > > > 15-20 minutes. Once I went to the build servers this stretched to
> 2+
> > > > hours.
> > > > > After playing a game of "what am I doing differently" I realized I
> > was
> > > > > causing this delay. TeamCity has a feature for running test
> coverage
> > on
> > > > > your tests. I had enabled this on our tests because test coverage
> is
> > > > great
> > > > > and part of the point of doing this. It turns out test coverage
> also
> > > very
> > > > > slow which was causing this time issue -- not something horribly
> > fubar
> > > in
> > > > > the code or the tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > The other problem I am seeing is that there seems to be some
> > > variabiltiy
> > > > in
> > > > > what tests fail here are the last 3 test runs, all with zero code
> > > > changes:
> > > > > * #45: 1178 tests failed, 53 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored
> > > > > * #44: 1170 tests failed, 49 new failures, 1483 passed, 119 ignored
> > > > > * #42: 1178 tests failed, 50 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored
> > > > > * #41: 1178 tests failed, 58 new failures, 1475 passed, 119 ignored
> > > > >
> > > > > In this context a "new" failure means that the test had passed in a
> > > > > previous iteration and then failed anew, potentially indicating
> some
> > > > broken
> > > > > code was introduced. Unfortunately there were zero code changes
> > during
> > > > any
> > > > > or all of those tests -- I was just trying to get a consistent run
> > > given
> > > > > consistent input. I also have seen a similar pattern on my private
> > > setup
> > > > > where I have done the lion's share of this development work.
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of sources, I am successfully running against the apache
> > > github
> > > > > mirror. The official apache git repo is still hanging about 90
> tests
> > > into
> > > > > things and I'm not sure why -- it appears to be the same commit
> hash
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > github branch (2d7533d4e5a3278f242c2915c6f8dfd10ea77847) so it is
> > > > > presumably the same code involved. Will investigate this further
> but
> > > for
> > > > > now we are pointed at https://github.com/apache/lucenenet.git.
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of proceeding here, here are the questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > * How important is constantly running / reported code coverage to
> us?
> > > > Worth
> > > > > having a very lengthly build process? Is it something where we
> setup
> > a
> > > > > single weekly code-coverage reporting job?
> > > > > * Does anyone have any insight into the inconsistent behavior by
> some
> > > of
> > > > > the tests? There are CSV exports of all the test runs so we could
> > > > probably
> > > > > do some anaysis to focus the targets.
> > > > > * Is there any difference I am *not* seeing with the ASF repo? Why
> is
> > > the
> > > > > github one working and the presumably identical ASF one not?
> > > > > * What kind of schedule do we want this running on? Right now it
> has
> > > been
> > > > > manual, mainly because I didn't want to loose 3 hour test cycles on
> > the
> > > > > world. But we are past that a bit so I think we can switch it to
> "run
> > > > after
> > > > > master branch has an update" at this point and not overstay our
> > welcome
> > > > > over at codebetter and get to the kind of feedback you all wanted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still on the todo list [with questions]:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Get a better build system in place in general to make room for .
> .
> > .
> > > .
> > > > > * Setup nuget generation and other packaging -- really kind of moot
> > > until
> > > > > we get tests passing in general but still notable.
> > > > > * Take a dive into integrating with the git flow system Itamar
> > > mentioned
> > > > > someplace but I can't seem to find at the moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps explain a bit, please let me know if you've got
> > > > questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > itamar@code972.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Wyatt, I wonder if you have any good news for us on this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko
> >
> > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, after fighting a number of teething problems -- many of
> them
> > > self
> > > > > > > inflicted -- I've got a solid, repeatable test run that
> finishes
> > in
> > > > 38
> > > > > > > minutes or so on our hardware.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can certainly reprise this setup over on
> > teamcity.codebetter.com
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > much effort. We will need to merge some changes into things
> > before
> > > > > > > proceeding -- the current state of tests in the trunk will just
> > > hang
> > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > tried to run them there. I'm guessing I'll need to sign a
> > > > contributing
> > > > > > > agreement here as I don't believe I filed one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sounds good, we'll be [Explicit()] with reason.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > > itamar@code972.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Yes, but Explicit() will help us isolate those issues from
> > other
> > > > > real
> > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > >> we can concentrate on solving in parallel.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > > > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/
> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > > > > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > [Ignore()] is good too, I actually prefer a slightly
> nuanced
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > >> called
> > > > > > > >> > [Explicit()] as that lets you still fire off the test from
> > > > > resharper
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > nunit gui.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > That said I proposed Assert.Fail() here because we can put
> > the
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > >> > point at the *exact* point where the folks should start
> > > > debugging
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > >> > versus having them start a at a whole test or test
> fixture.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Don't forget to stick a reason to the Ignore property
> tho!
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > > > > >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > > >> > > Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > > > >> itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Or just Skip (or Ignore, however that's called in
> NUnit)
> > > :)
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > > > > >> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > > >> > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > > http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > > > > > >> > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> 5 minutes sounds like a reasonable going in
> > proposition.
> > > > That
> > > > > > > said
> > > > > > > >> > > >> depending on how many of these there are there might
> > well
> > > > be
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> *lot*
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > 5
> > > > > > > >> > > >> minute waits.
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> Would it help if I just stuck Assert.Fails() where I
> > run
> > > > into
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > >> > > loops
> > > > > > > >> > > >> for the folks smarter than I to run down?
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > > > >> > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > 5 mins max for one test maybe?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > To fix that infinite loop we need to revisit the
> > > original
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> code,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> most
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > likely its porting of an iterator-style code that
> > went
> > > > > > wrong. I
> > > > > > > >> hope
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > have time to look at it next week, please anyone
> else
> > > who
> > > > > > feels
> > > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > beat me to it..
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > --
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > > > > http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > So, after the 2nd day of watching the tests just
> > > spin I
> > > > > > > decided
> > > > > > > >> > > that a
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > little visibility might make sense as something
> > just
> > > > was
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > adding
> > > > > > > >> > > up
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > -- I
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > expected some failing tests, and some
> long-running
> > > > tests
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> there
> > > > > > > >> > > >> just
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > ain't enough data here to keep something running
> > for
> > > 8+
> > > > > > > hours.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I stood up VS and the debugger and
> started
> > > > > looking
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > >> > > things
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > I found that I was hitting at least one infiinte
> > loop
> > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > randomized values -- specifically at
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Index/BasePostingsFormatTestCase.cs#L394
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > ;
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I'm not sure how to proceed here as if we
> > > want
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > >> > > automation
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > tests need to run through in a reasonable amount
> of
> > > > time
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > don't
> > > > > > > >> > > >> know
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > enough about the project to know what should run
> or
> > > > not.
> > > > > > One
> > > > > > > >> > thought
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > would
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > be to use nunit timeout attributes (
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=timeout&r=2.5)
> to
> > > > > > constrain
> > > > > > > >> > > things.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> If
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > so
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > what is a reasonable timeout?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > I'm quite open to other, non kludgy thoughts too
> .
> > .
> > > .
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I looked over GitVersion -- looks like a great
> > fit
> > > > for
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > project
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > though
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > it will require a bit of forethought about
> > > branching
> > > > > > > >> strategies.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I'll take a run at getting it integrated once I
> > get
> > > > > > through
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > test
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > suite
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > running successfully.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Itamar
> > > Syn-Hershko
> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Inline
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > > > > > >> > https://twitter.com/synhershko
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > > > > > > http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Wyatt
> Barnett <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks. I registered at CodeBetter.com under
> > > wwb.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > any
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > documentation on their TeamCity setup or
> > someone
> > > > > who I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > reach
> > > > > > > >> > > >> out
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > regarding questions about the build
> > environment?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm asking around, will let you know
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for the rundown -- things sound
> pretty
> > > > > > > >> straightforward
> > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> doable.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > One thing we'll need to think a bit a bout
> is
> > > how
> > > > do
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> want
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > manage
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > git branching strategy to best integrate
> with
> > > > > TeamCity
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > best
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > automate
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > the release cycle. Doing things like
> > constantly
> > > > > > > building a
> > > > > > > >> > > >> "trunk"
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > releasing based on tags are very doable.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Are you familiar with
> > > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion
> > > > > > > >> > > >> ?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > I'll
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> be interested in adopting this to our process.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > I've grabbed the code, looks like things are
> > > > pretty
> > > > > > > clean
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > >> terms
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> being
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > able to build and run cleanly. One question
> --
> > > I
> > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > >> > > running
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> test
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > suite, it appears to execute about 80%
> > > > successfully.
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > >> > > >> presuming
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > because we are still porting 4.8.0 here and
> is
> > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > >> > > behavior.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > confirm.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, we still have some failing tests. The
> hope
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> > > utilize
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> TeamCity's reports to measure the affects of
> > > > internal
> > > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > >> > > >> make
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> faster.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'll take a few stabs at a build cycle over
> > the
> > > > next
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > >> days
> > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > see
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> what
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > I can shake out.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Itamar
> > > > > Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> itamar@code972.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks Wyatt
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Can you please register at
> > > > > > > >> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/
> > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > send
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> me
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > your
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > user name (privately if you prefer)?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please use the master branch of our Apache
> > git
> > > > > > git://
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > git.apache.org/lucene.net.git - or the
> > mirror
> > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net
> (would
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> original
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > one
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > to avoid delays)
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The way I see it is this:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.TestFramework compiles and
> > > > generates
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> nuget
> > > > > > > >> > > >> package
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Core and Lucene.Net.Tests
> > > compiles,
> > > > > > > taking
> > > > > > > >> > > >> dependency
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Tests is run and if
> successful
> > > > > versions
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > build
> > > > > > > >> > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > generates nuget on the local feed (we also
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > MyGet
> > > > > > > >> > > >> account to
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> work
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > with)
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Same process to all sub-projects:
> > > > > > Lucene.Net.Queries
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > example:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Compile
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Compile Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Run tests from
> Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries
> > > > (take
> > > > > > > >> > dependency
> > > > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework)
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Create nuget for Lucene.Net.Queries
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Every sub-project should be re-compiled
> > and
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > >> re-run
> > > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > projects
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > it depends on have changed (you can
> probably
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > >> cases by
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > defining
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > watch folders under src\)
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > We can then iterate from there.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I updated the README to explain the new
> > > > structure
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/README.md#files
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > -
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> let
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > me
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > know if you have any questions.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > > > > > > >> > http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Wyatt
> > > Barnett <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > That would be great -- let me know what
> I
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > help
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > make
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> that
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happen.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > In the meantime I've got a teamcity
> server
> > > to
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > here,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> should I
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > looking at
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > as the project layout.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Also, what is envisioned for the output
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > >> > > >> pipeline?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Many
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > things
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > are within the art of the possible.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:08 PM,
> Prescott
> > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Would love the help setting this up -
> > > Itamar
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > know
> > > > > > > >> > > >> if we
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > provide
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Wyatt access for this?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > From: Wyatt Barnett<mailto:
> > > > > > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Sent: 11/14/2014 4:26 PM
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Subject: Re: Setting up the CI
> pipeline
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > I do a lot of CI and CD and I've got
> > loads
> > > > of
> > > > > > seat
> > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > >> > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > would be happy to help the cause.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:49 AM,
> Itamar
> > > > > > > Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > itamar@code972.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Heya,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > So JetBrains and CodeBetter have
> > setup a
> > > > > > > TeamCity
> > > > > > > >> > > account
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > for
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> us -
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet&tab=projectOverview
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > I have asked them to add Prescott
> and
> > > Troy
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > >> collaborators,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> we
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > 3
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > access to change stuff there.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > The idea is to have every
> sub-project
> > > > (Core,
> > > > > > > >> Codecs,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Queries,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > Facets,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > etc)
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > compile and available as a nuget
> > > package,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > thoroughly
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > tested
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > via
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > the test agents on TeamCity.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Prescott, Troy - you said you can
> work
> > > on
> > > > > > > setting
> > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > >> > > >> up,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happy
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > for you to go ahead and do this now.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > If there's anyone else on this list
> > who
> > > > has
> > > > > > > >> > experience
> > > > > > > >> > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > setting up CI pipelines, please drop
> > us
> > > a
> > > > > line
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> willing
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > help
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > with this effort.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > > > > > > >> > > >> http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message