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

Adding changes to support PPC64LE #2379

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Sep 24, 2020
Merged

Adding changes to support PPC64LE #2379

merged 5 commits into from Sep 24, 2020

Conversation

ezeeyahoo
Copy link
Contributor

@ezeeyahoo ezeeyahoo commented Sep 3, 2020

Summary of changes

Hi,

I have added few jobs to support PPC64LE architecture, request you to please review.

Enhancement

Pull Request Checklist

  • [No] Changes have tests
  • [No] News fragment added in changelog.d. See documentation for details

jaraco
jaraco approved these changes Sep 3, 2020
Copy link
Member

@jaraco jaraco left a comment

Thanks for this change. Glad to have better platform test coverage.

Couple of things:

  • Travis support might go away at some point. Do you know if the project can get similar platform coverage on Github Actions or Azure Pipelines?
  • Looking at the test run, I can't discern from the build matrix in the UI which runs are ppc64le and which are x86. Is there a way to make the architecture visible in the report?
  • Probably it's not necessary to test a full matrix of python versions on this platform. Probably just one or two Python versions are suitable to catch platform-specific concerns.

.travis.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.travis.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
Restoring mis-placed comment, added comment for PPC64LE specific permission fix and reduced number of jobs for the same platform.
@ezeeyahoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

ezeeyahoo commented Sep 4, 2020

Thanks Jaraco for the comments.

Couple of things:

* Travis support might go away at some point. Do you know if the project can get similar platform coverage on Github Actions or Azure Pipelines?

This project happens to be a part of the Red Hat distributions, including their ppc64le builds. We are enabling upstream CI for those to help reduce the cost of maintaining/debugging issues and to ensure the port stays current on ppc64le. We have very few that support Power today (jenkins, Travis, and possible github actions). We would like to stay in sync with what you are already doing as much as possible.

* Looking at the test run, I can't discern from the build matrix in the UI which runs are ppc64le and which are x86. Is there a way to make the architecture visible in the report?

We can identify x86 by AMD64 and likewise ppc64le in the second coloumn in the travis build matrix.
Another idea could be to create a separate branch for PPC64LE and X86 resp. and then show separate report for each like -
Arch: ppc64le Build Status

* Probably it's not necessary to test a full matrix of python versions on this platform. Probably just one or two Python versions are suitable to catch platform-specific concerns.

I have reduced the number of jobs to two stable(3.5 and 3.8) and 1 latest dev release, pypy support might come in future, find entry in allow_failures:.

Thanks

@ezeeyahoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

ezeeyahoo commented Sep 18, 2020

Hey Jaraco,

Anything else, that I can do for this PR to go?

@ezeeyahoo ezeeyahoo requested a review from jaraco Sep 18, 2020
.travis.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.travis.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.travis.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
.travis.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@webknjaz webknjaz left a comment

In addition to other comments, I think you should extend the export in the after_success: step to also include the arch.

@webknjaz
Copy link
Member

webknjaz commented Sep 20, 2020

@jaraco jaraco merged commit da415dd into pypa:master Sep 24, 2020
0 of 2 checks passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants