Skip to content
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

Travis builds failing due to build timeouts #23

Closed
icyrockcom opened this issue Mar 10, 2017 · 10 comments
Closed

Travis builds failing due to build timeouts #23

icyrockcom opened this issue Mar 10, 2017 · 10 comments

Comments

@icyrockcom
Copy link
Contributor

Travis builds are failing due to build timeouts:

https://travis-ci.org/exercism/xpurescript/builds/209606731.

The message is:

The job exceeded the maximum time limit for jobs, and has been terminated.

The above build took ~50m.

Chatted on gitter:

https://gitter.im/exercism/support?at=58c22a41872fc8ce62e00614

The recommendation is to start caching builds to shorten the build time, since pulp is recompiling everything every time.

@paf31
Copy link
Contributor

paf31 commented Mar 10, 2017

We should be able to add output/ to the Travis cache.

icyrockcom added a commit to icyrockcom/purescript-exercism that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2017
icyrockcom added a commit to icyrockcom/purescript-exercism that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2017
icyrockcom added a commit to icyrockcom/purescript-exercism that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2017
icyrockcom added a commit to icyrockcom/purescript-exercism that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2017
@icyrockcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks Phil - with the additions in icyrockcom@b2d0f09 the last Travis build now takes 7 mins (though without the latest word-count exercise that's pending approval) vs 21 / 23 / 24 / 34 mins.

This is a nice speed up, but not as much as I hoped so. Does it make sense to cache bower_components, too?

@paf31
Copy link
Contributor

paf31 commented Mar 11, 2017

Yes, we can cache bower_components, but I'm not sure how much it will speed things up.

icyrockcom added a commit to icyrockcom/purescript-exercism that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2017
@icyrockcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

icyrockcom commented Mar 11, 2017

Latest build of the above icyrockcom@3226c6e finished in 3:39. While the variations are obviously great, this version promises to be perhaps 25-50% faster, so I'd go with it. If nothing else, there's less noise in the build logs.

@icyrockcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any comments on this one or changes I should make? If this looks good, I can rebase on top of the current master for you to merge, let me know.

@lpil
Copy link
Sponsor Member

lpil commented Mar 14, 2017

Looks good to me, thanks :)

icyrockcom added a commit to icyrockcom/purescript-exercism that referenced this issue Mar 14, 2017
@icyrockcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @lpil, rebased. The build finished in 7:09, so quite slower than the other day, but still quite faster than current builds. For some reason, the project is being built even though it should be in the cache, e.g.:

-------------------------------------------------------
Testing accumulate
cache: lrwxrwxrwx 1 travis travis 56 Mar 14 22:59 bower_components -> /home/travis/.exercise_cache/accumulate/bower_components
cache: lrwxrwxrwx 1 travis travis 46 Mar 14 22:59 output -> /home/travis/.exercise_cache/accumulate/output
* Building project in /home/travis/build/icyrockcom/xpurescript/exercises/accumulate
Compiling Accumulate
Compiling Test.Main

so we are not getting the full speedup here. I could not reproduce locally, I'll have to look into it.

If you have a moment, please merge into master, as current builds are failing. For example, @paf31 merged word-count the other day, but the build failed after 50 minutes.

@paf31
Copy link
Contributor

paf31 commented Mar 14, 2017

Can you please make a PR?

@icyrockcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

@paf31 Sure, #24

@icyrockcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closed by #24

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants