Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
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
[CI] Prebuild E2E tests as part of build workflow #16682
[CI] Prebuild E2E tests as part of build workflow #16682
Changes from all commits
1416929
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it mean that whenever we call
.github/workflows/sycl-linux-build.yml
, we also build E2E tests? IIRC, we don't use pre-built test binaries in post-commit and nightly.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, we do, and no, we don't. That said I imagine we can start doing so relatively soon. Alternatively, we can make this addition optional, but I thought that build-only mode of e2e tests isn't that different from
check-sycl
that we do unconditionally everywhere (well, if sycl is modified in pre-commit). Writing this, I can even imagine re-unification ofsycl/test
andsycl/test-e2e
now!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would personally be of the opinion that we make this addition optional - don't build E2E tests by default when sycl-linux-build.yml is called, unless the caller explicitly asks for it.
Once the "split-test" mode is mature enough that we use it for all workflows and other runners as well, we can build E2E tests by default, just like
sycl/test
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it will just complicate implementation with very little benefit... Nightly/post traffic is several times smaller than pre-commit (because PR usually take several iterations). Also, unlike pre-commit, nightly/post don't skip any
check-*
at build stage, so having e2e built there takes less percentage of the overall duration.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i agree with udit if the implementation cost is low, buf it's high as andrei says im fine with enabling it always
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If it complicates the implementation, I'm fine with the current PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. I'll plan to work on it the coming days/weeks. Either make sure the e2e artifacts get used more or make optional, don't believe we need to delay progress by making extra changes and extra testing. Too easy to make a typo and too long to run the full CI cycle. Very much would like to merge while it's green :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if we dont pass this, it falls back to
which clang++
, so i assume the builtclang++
isn't on the path?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
discussed offline, we need to make sure CMake sees the same CXX compiler at build/run stages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we just delete the
build
image?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
discussed offline, we only create
*nightly:latest
now, the:build
is getting increasingly stale/outdated.