The current (full) test suite runs in 2h20 (Koha_Main/3253 on Docker_15). We should improve that. One of the main reason is the recent introduction of new xt tests that are run on all files (valid, tidy, pod, codespell, etc). From a previous run (last week) I noted this top 5: xt/vue_tidy.t 105446 ms xt/perltidy.t 175970 ms xt/js_tidy.t 239615 ms xt/author/codespell.t 467041 ms xt/pl_valid.t 2502354 ms
Created attachment 182308 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Incremental test runs The idea of this patchset is to allow increment runs for some of our tests. The current (full) test suite runs in 2h20 (Koha_Main/3253 on Docker_15). One of the main reason is the recent introduction of new xt tests that are run on all files (valid, tidy, pod, codespell, etc). From a previous run (last week) I noted this top 5: xt/vue_tidy.t 105446 ms xt/perltidy.t 175970 ms xt/js_tidy.t 239615 ms xt/author/codespell.t 467041 ms xt/pl_valid.t 2502354 ms We are going to merge js_tidy.t and vue_tidy.t as it does no longer make sense to have a difference between them (we had at the beginning of the vue work, because of differences in the options, now everything is handled in the .prettierrc config file) Once this is pushed, we will be able to create a new project on gitlab and pass some env variables from Jenkins. Suggestion: project would be named https://gitlab.com/koha-community/koha-ci-results When everything will be setup, jenkins will run the tests one the whole test suite, then the next run will be "incremental": we are going to run the tests on the files that were failing and the files modified by the last push. Example: * "commit abc": all the files are tested, xt/perltidy.t is failing on Koha.pm * koha-ci-results/perltidy/abc is created and contains ['Koha.pm'] * "commit def" has a modification on about.pl * xt/perltidy.t is checking tidy on Koha.pm and about.pl, both are tidy * koha-ci-results/perltidy/def is created and contains [] Test plan: * Create an empty project on gitlab eg. https://gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results * Generate an access token with the developer role (https://gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results/-/settings/access_tokens) Copy the token (in the following noted as TOKEN_REPLACE_ME) * Unprotect the "main" branch * Run the following prove command: ``` KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUN_REPO_URL=gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results.git \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS=1 \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS_REPORT=1 \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS_TOKEN=TOKEN_REPLACE_ME \ prove xt/perltidy.t ``` => a new commit is created on your repo * Add some mess in one of your perl file, commit using `--no-verify` to bypass the git hook * Run the prove command again => only the file you have modified is tested => a new commit is created and the file is reported as failing * Add another commit, fix the failure, add other mess => confirm that what you are seeing makes sense :) * Ideally redo with the different tests modified by this patchset Note that you can also export the following env vars to set git author detail: * GIT_COMMITTER_NAME * GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL * GIT_AUTHOR_NAME * GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL Question: What are we going to use on Jenkins?
Created attachment 182309 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Remove files that have been deleted Ignore deleted or renamed files
Created attachment 182310 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Merge vue and js tidy tests
Created attachment 182311 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Apply to other slow tests
Discussion for QA: How should we handle concurrency? It's crucial to prevent multiple tests from pushing simultaneously. To minimize the risk of the repository becoming outdated, we might need to perform a pull right before each push. Is that enough? Keep in mind that only one job will be run at the same time (Koha_Main). Maybe later we will also use it for stable branches.
An important note I forgot in the commit message. You can use the incremental run without the report (the report will be only for Jenkins). So it will help RM as xt tests will run (way) faster.
Note that we may miss some bad bugs. For instance if a version of codespell changes and that catch more typo, we will miss them with the incremental run even if the test fails in a regular run. Could also happen with pl_valid I guess if an external lib introduces changes that breaks our code. But they really are edge cases we cannot avoid and that should be caught by the qa script anyway.
Created attachment 182347 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Incremental test runs The idea of this patchset is to allow increment runs for some of our tests. The current (full) test suite runs in 2h20 (Koha_Main/3253 on Docker_15). One of the main reason is the recent introduction of new xt tests that are run on all files (valid, tidy, pod, codespell, etc). From a previous run (last week) I noted this top 5: xt/vue_tidy.t 105446 ms xt/perltidy.t 175970 ms xt/js_tidy.t 239615 ms xt/author/codespell.t 467041 ms xt/pl_valid.t 2502354 ms We are going to merge js_tidy.t and vue_tidy.t as it does no longer make sense to have a difference between them (we had at the beginning of the vue work, because of differences in the options, now everything is handled in the .prettierrc config file) Once this is pushed, we will be able to create a new project on gitlab and pass some env variables from Jenkins. Suggestion: project would be named https://gitlab.com/koha-community/koha-ci-results When everything will be setup, jenkins will run the tests one the whole test suite, then the next run will be "incremental": we are going to run the tests on the files that were failing and the files modified by the last push. Example: * "commit abc": all the files are tested, xt/perltidy.t is failing on Koha.pm * koha-ci-results/perltidy/abc is created and contains ['Koha.pm'] * "commit def" has a modification on about.pl * xt/perltidy.t is checking tidy on Koha.pm and about.pl, both are tidy * koha-ci-results/perltidy/def is created and contains [] Test plan: * Create an empty project on gitlab eg. https://gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results * Generate an access token with the developer role (https://gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results/-/settings/access_tokens) Copy the token (in the following noted as TOKEN_REPLACE_ME) * Unprotect the "main" branch * Run the following prove command: ``` KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUN_REPO_URL=gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results.git \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS=1 \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS_REPORT=1 \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS_TOKEN=TOKEN_REPLACE_ME \ prove xt/perltidy.t ``` => a new commit is created on your repo * Add some mess in one of your perl file, commit using `--no-verify` to bypass the git hook * Run the prove command again => only the file you have modified is tested => a new commit is created and the file is reported as failing * Add another commit, fix the failure, add other mess => confirm that what you are seeing makes sense :) * Ideally redo with the different tests modified by this patchset * Note that you can use the incremental run without the report (the report will be only for Jenkins). It will help RM as xt tests will run (way) faster. Note that you can also export the following env vars to set git author detail: * GIT_COMMITTER_NAME * GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL * GIT_AUTHOR_NAME * GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL Question: What are we going to use on Jenkins? Discussion for QA: How should we handle concurrency? It's crucial to prevent multiple tests from pushing simultaneously. To minimize the risk of the repository becoming outdated, we might need to perform a pull right before each push. Is that enough? Keep in mind that only one job will be run at the same time (Koha_Main). Maybe later we will also use it for stable branches.
Created attachment 182348 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Remove files that have been deleted Ignore deleted or renamed files
Created attachment 182349 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Merge vue and js tidy tests
Created attachment 182350 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Apply to other slow tests
Created attachment 182355 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Incremental test runs The idea of this patchset is to allow increment runs for some of our tests. The current (full) test suite runs in 2h20 (Koha_Main/3253 on Docker_15). One of the main reason is the recent introduction of new xt tests that are run on all files (valid, tidy, pod, codespell, etc). From a previous run (last week) I noted this top 5: xt/vue_tidy.t 105446 ms xt/perltidy.t 175970 ms xt/js_tidy.t 239615 ms xt/author/codespell.t 467041 ms xt/pl_valid.t 2502354 ms We are going to merge js_tidy.t and vue_tidy.t as it does no longer make sense to have a difference between them (we had at the beginning of the vue work, because of differences in the options, now everything is handled in the .prettierrc config file) Once this is pushed, we will be able to create a new project on gitlab and pass some env variables from Jenkins. Suggestion: project would be named https://gitlab.com/koha-community/koha-ci-results When everything will be setup, jenkins will run the tests one the whole test suite, then the next run will be "incremental": we are going to run the tests on the files that were failing and the files modified by the last push. Example: * "commit abc": all the files are tested, xt/perltidy.t is failing on Koha.pm * koha-ci-results/perltidy/abc is created and contains ['Koha.pm'] * "commit def" has a modification on about.pl * xt/perltidy.t is checking tidy on Koha.pm and about.pl, both are tidy * koha-ci-results/perltidy/def is created and contains [] Test plan: * Create an empty project on gitlab eg. https://gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results * Generate an access token with the developer role (https://gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results/-/settings/access_tokens) Copy the token (in the following noted as TOKEN_REPLACE_ME) * Unprotect the "main" branch * Run the following prove command: ``` KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUN_REPO_URL=gitlab.com/me/koha-ci-results.git \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS=1 \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS_REPORT=1 \ KOHA_CI_INCREMENTAL_RUNS_TOKEN=TOKEN_REPLACE_ME \ prove xt/perltidy.t ``` => a new commit is created on your repo * Add some mess in one of your perl file, commit using `--no-verify` to bypass the git hook * Run the prove command again => only the file you have modified is tested => a new commit is created and the file is reported as failing * Add another commit, fix the failure, add other mess => confirm that what you are seeing makes sense :) * Ideally redo with the different tests modified by this patchset * Note that you can use the incremental run without the report (the report will be only for Jenkins). It will help RM as xt tests will run (way) faster. Note that you can also export the following env vars to set git author detail: * GIT_COMMITTER_NAME * GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL * GIT_AUTHOR_NAME * GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL Question: What are we going to use on Jenkins? Discussion for QA: How should we handle concurrency? It's crucial to prevent multiple tests from pushing simultaneously. To minimize the risk of the repository becoming outdated, we might need to perform a pull right before each push. Is that enough? Keep in mind that only one job will be run at the same time (Koha_Main). Maybe later we will also use it for stable branches.
Created attachment 182356 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Remove files that have been deleted Ignore deleted or renamed files
Created attachment 182357 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Merge vue and js tidy tests
Created attachment 182358 [details] [review] Bug 39877: Apply to other slow tests
> xt/pl_valid.t 2502354 ms We can also save some time by not checking *.t files, since they are executed anyway. *.t files represent approximately 25% of the total time of pl_valid.t for me. (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #7) > Could also happen with pl_valid I > guess if an external lib introduces changes that breaks our code. But they > really are edge cases we cannot avoid and that should be caught by the qa > script anyway. If an exported subroutine is removed/renamed, code that still use/import it will fail to compile, but this won't get caught if we are only checking modified files. Will it be caught by the QA script ?
(In reply to Julian Maurice from comment #16) > > xt/pl_valid.t 2502354 ms > We can also save some time by not checking *.t files, since they are > executed anyway. *.t files represent approximately 25% of the total time of > pl_valid.t for me. Could be, yes. > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #7) > > Could also happen with pl_valid I > > guess if an external lib introduces changes that breaks our code. But they > > really are edge cases we cannot avoid and that should be caught by the qa > > script anyway. > If an exported subroutine is removed/renamed, code that still use/import it > will fail to compile, but this won't get caught if we are only checking > modified files. Will it be caught by the QA script ? I have no idea why I have written that, it does not make sense.