Adding github action for Visual Studio #1234

mcuee · 2023-01-24T00:11:13Z

This PR adds github action for Visual Studio.

Together with the existing MSYS2 github action, this wil address #1045.

github actions for Window #1045

tormodvolden · 2023-01-24T13:04:32Z

This is probably fine, but do we need both this and appveyor? I am already uncomfortable that a tiny comment typo push causes such a waste of resources :) Appveyor is creating build artifacts archives, that would be great to improve to generate full binary packages. Is this possible with GitHub actions?

tormodvolden · 2023-01-24T13:06:59Z

Maybe we could configure appveyor to build only on tags, and let this github action (it does indeed look a lot more simple and elegant) do the per-commit build.

mcuee · 2023-01-24T13:47:54Z

Appveyor is creating build artifacts archives, that would be great to improve to generate full binary packages. Is this possible with GitHub actions?

Yes github actions can keep the artifcates.

Examples:
https://github.com/avrdudes/avrdude/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yml (for all buids, binary and cmake build files)
https://github.com/libusb/hidapi/blob/master/.github/workflows/builds.yml (only for Windows msbuild)

mcuee · 2023-01-24T13:48:44Z

Maybe we could configure appveyor to build only on tags, and let this github action (it does indeed look a lot more simple and elegant) do the per-commit build.

I think this is a good idea.

We can also improve github action build scripts later to keep the artifacts and remove appveyor altogether in the future.

mcuee · 2023-02-11T23:50:47Z

Maybe we could configure appveyor to build only on tags, and let this github action (it does indeed look a lot more simple and elegant) do the per-commit build.

Ah, Appveyor has Cygwin build now -- so we may need to add cygwin github action first before going with this idea.

.github/workflows/msvc.yml

mcuee · 2023-05-08T23:46:11Z

@Youw

Your suggestion is good. Just wondering if you can help to suggest how to add the feature to keep the binary for MSVC build. Thanks.

mcuee · 2023-05-08T23:59:07Z

@Youw
Hmm, strange, it says there is a syntax error which I can not figure out.

Youw · 2023-05-09T09:41:52Z

syntax error

Fixed. Coding inside of the suggestion box is tricky.

Youw · 2023-05-09T09:53:13Z

how to add the feature to keep the binary for MSVC build

Lets start with the general theory a bit: we want to store some binaries (probably right here on Github) which are produced by the build.
To store a binary, we need a storage, and when in comes to storage, we should ask what kind of storage do we want:

lifetime: temporary/permanent;
scope: generic for a repo? build? bound for some other entity?

NOTE: Github doesn't provide a generic repo/organisation-level storage (but there used to be - obsolete).

The only permanent storage there is on Github - an artifacts attached to a release. I don't think that is what we need right now.

The only available alternative - build artifacts bound to a specific build: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/upload-a-build-artifact
Example used by HIDAPI: https://github.com/libusb/hidapi/blob/b516e970480a8d05b1c392d106ca110a9d06d668/.github/workflows/builds.yml#L313
Available here: https://github.com/libusb/hidapi/actions/runs/4891807115

But that storage is always temporary (see Retention Period).

.github/workflows/msvc.yml

mcuee · 2023-05-09T10:38:25Z

I think for the purpose of this PR, we just need to keep the binary files for a specific build. I understand it is a temporary storage.

mcuee · 2023-05-17T09:51:25Z

@tormodvolden

I think we can merge this PR first. Later we can discuss whether we want to keep the binaries or not.

tormodvolden · 2023-05-17T15:35:36Z

Can you please squash all the fixup commits?

tormodvolden · 2023-05-17T15:42:24Z

And if it cannot store artifacts, does it have any advantage over the appveyor builds?

Youw · 2023-05-17T16:42:44Z

if it cannot store artifacts

Oh it can (see here), it is just a matter of getting it done.

any advantage over the appveyor builds?

At least one thing - all in one place. The build, the logs, etc. - all at github and no additional integration is needed.

But there is a drawback: this build actually checks a lot less than the Appveyor version (only Latest Windows/Visual Studio and only a single (latest) toolset).

tormodvolden · 2023-05-17T21:21:58Z

all in one place

Could seem like a pragmatic advantage. On a general note though, if we all stop supporting the alternatives we may well be finding ourselves without alternatives one day.

Youw · 2023-05-17T21:38:54Z

a pragmatic advantage

Just a convenience I'd say.

Regarding the alternatives note. This doesn't seem like a replacement for Appveyor builds - only additional alternative.

BTW: @mcuee what is the original reason to have this? As a potential way to store automatic artifacts, or is there other reason?

mcuee · 2023-05-18T01:55:41Z

BTW: @mcuee what is the original reason to have this? As a potential way to store automatic artifacts, or is there other reason?

The idea is to have github action for Windows. To me it is faster than Appveyor.

Then the next step is to keep the artifacts, that is not the original intention of the PR, but rather the next step.

mcuee · 2023-05-18T02:05:00Z

Can you please squash all the fixup commits?

@Youw
Can you help here? I am not good at git and I am afraid that I may screw up the PR.

tormodvolden · 2023-05-18T08:06:59Z

To make sure you are not screwing up anything while rebasing, just check out a branch copy to work on:
(note what the original branch is called, e.g. my_master)
git checkout -b new_b
Now rebase it on top of master:
git rebase -i origin/master
In the editor you can now replace "pick" with "s" (for squash) on the second and further commits. And clean up the commit message.
Afterwards you can compare this fixed-up branch with the orginal:
git diff my_master
Or, since many other files were changed since then:
git diff my_master -- .github/
If everything is fine, you can force-push the new branch directly, or maybe easier without having to know the remote name etc, update your original branch and repush it:
git checkout my_master
git reset --hard new_b
git push -f

mcuee · 2023-05-21T00:28:36Z

@tormodvolden

Thanks for the great help. I have tried your steps and it seems to work. Hope I am doing it correctly.

The first step -- I am not so sure what to do so I actually created the new_b branch from the github Web interface using the github_action as the base.

git clone https://github.com/mcuee/libusb.git -b new_b
cd .\libusb\
git rebase -i origin/master (replace "pick" with "s" (for squash) on the second and further commits. And clean up the commit message.)
git diff github_action
 git checkout github_action
git reset --hard new_b
git push -f

mcuee · 2023-10-19T00:48:33Z

@tormodvolden

Just wondering if you are okay with this PR now. Thanks.

tormodvolden · 2023-10-19T08:38:03Z

What is the situation about the artifacts, and the duplication of AppVeyor?

mcuee · 2023-10-19T11:20:15Z

What is the situation about the artifacts, and the duplication of AppVeyor?

Hmm, I think we can keep AppVeyor and the artifacts generated by AppVeyor.

github action is faster and we can have future PRs to improve this and then totally replace AppVeyor (eg: support more versions of MSVC, keeping the artifacts). But I do not know how to do that myself.

neheb · 2023-10-19T17:58:18Z

.github/workflows/msvc.yml

+    - uses: actions/checkout@v3
+    - uses: microsoft/setup-msbuild@v1.1
+    - name: MSBuild ${{ matrix.platform }}
+      run: msbuild msvc\libusb.sln /p:Configuration=Release /p:Platform=${{ matrix.platform }}


should use msbuild-architecture instead.

neheb · 2023-10-19T18:02:03Z

.github/workflows/msvc.yml

+  build:
+    runs-on: windows-latest
+    strategy:
+      matrix:


AppVeyor tests various versions of MSVC. You should use vs-version.

mcuee · 2023-10-20T13:46:12Z

I think I will close this PR first.

@neheb
You seem to be familiar with this topic. PR is welcome.

mcuee added the build_ci Build system, CI label Jan 24, 2023

mcuee mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2023

Keep github action artifacts #1242

Open

Youw reviewed May 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/msvc.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Youw reviewed May 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/msvc.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Create msvc.yml

b9a2293

mcuee force-pushed the github_action branch from d5a43cc to b9a2293 Compare May 21, 2023 00:22

mcuee mentioned this pull request Oct 19, 2023

Misc: To release 1.0.27 #1094

Closed

neheb reviewed Oct 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

mcuee closed this Oct 20, 2023

mcuee deleted the github_action branch October 20, 2023 13:46

tormodvolden mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2023

Add Windows MSVC build to Github Actions #1353

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Adding github action for Visual Studio #1234

Adding github action for Visual Studio #1234

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

tormodvolden commented Jan 24, 2023

tormodvolden commented Jan 24, 2023

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mcuee commented Feb 11, 2023

mcuee commented May 8, 2023

mcuee commented May 8, 2023

Youw commented May 9, 2023

Youw commented May 9, 2023

mcuee commented May 9, 2023

mcuee commented May 17, 2023

tormodvolden commented May 17, 2023

tormodvolden commented May 17, 2023

Youw commented May 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

tormodvolden commented May 17, 2023

Youw commented May 17, 2023

mcuee commented May 18, 2023

mcuee commented May 18, 2023

tormodvolden commented May 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mcuee commented May 21, 2023

mcuee commented Oct 19, 2023

tormodvolden commented Oct 19, 2023

mcuee commented Oct 19, 2023

neheb Oct 19, 2023

neheb Oct 19, 2023

mcuee commented Oct 20, 2023

Adding github action for Visual Studio #1234

Adding github action for Visual Studio #1234

Conversation

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023 • edited Loading

tormodvolden commented Jan 24, 2023

tormodvolden commented Jan 24, 2023

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023 • edited Loading

mcuee commented Feb 11, 2023

mcuee commented May 8, 2023

mcuee commented May 8, 2023

Youw commented May 9, 2023

Youw commented May 9, 2023

mcuee commented May 9, 2023

mcuee commented May 17, 2023

tormodvolden commented May 17, 2023

tormodvolden commented May 17, 2023

Youw commented May 17, 2023 • edited Loading

tormodvolden commented May 17, 2023

Youw commented May 17, 2023

mcuee commented May 18, 2023

mcuee commented May 18, 2023

tormodvolden commented May 18, 2023 • edited Loading

mcuee commented May 21, 2023

mcuee commented Oct 19, 2023

tormodvolden commented Oct 19, 2023

mcuee commented Oct 19, 2023

neheb Oct 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

neheb Oct 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mcuee commented Oct 20, 2023

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mcuee commented Jan 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Youw commented May 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

tormodvolden commented May 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading