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

Slightly speed up CI runs #12946

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 30, 2024
Merged

Slightly speed up CI runs #12946

merged 1 commit into from
May 30, 2024

Conversation

Earlopain
Copy link
Contributor

GitHub actions can run 4 workers at once. There's also no need to explicitly set this variable as these are all vms. I presume that CircleCI reported a value too high.

Also a good chance to see what the coverage upload is up to now.


Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

  • The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
  • Wrote good commit messages.
  • Commit message starts with [Fix #issue-number] (if the related issue exists).
  • Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
  • Squashed related commits together.
  • Added tests.
  • Ran bundle exec rake default. It executes all tests and runs RuboCop on its own code.
  • Added an entry (file) to the changelog folder named {change_type}_{change_description}.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format for details.

GitHub actions can run 4 workers at once. There's also no need to explicitly
set this variable as these are all vms. I presume that CircleCI reported a value too high
@Earlopain
Copy link
Contributor Author

Earlopain commented May 30, 2024

Is it possible that CC_TEST_REPORTER_ID was overwritten in CircleCI project settings? I've copied the value from the circleci config here but I suspect that that is not the actual value:
image

If that is indeed the case then you'll need to create a repository secret https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop/settings/secrets/actions/new with the correct value to reference in the job. The correct value is here: https://codeclimate.com/repos/5ee70a8d0cdfc901a1002d23/settings/test_reporter

When you make it a secret, PRs from forks will not recieve this value (since otherwise the workflow can just be altered to upload secrets somewhere else), so it will only upload coverage when merging to master. This wil only for for PRs if that value is public (CodeClimate also doesn't consider it sensitive)

@koic
Copy link
Member

koic commented May 30, 2024

There were concerns that not limiting the number of parallel processes might cause memory shortages in JRuby, but it seems there are no issues. The CI failure appears to be unrelated to this change, so I will merge it and investigate the failure separately.

@koic koic merged commit f01e933 into rubocop:master May 30, 2024
46 of 47 checks passed
@bbatsov
Copy link
Collaborator

bbatsov commented May 30, 2024

Something is messed up in CodeClimate as the old links to the repos are there (those from rubocop-hq) and they seem to be active, but their settings can't be changed. Also rubocop/rubocop is there twice for some reason... I've added some CC_TEST_REPORTER_ID from one of them, but I think we'll need to contact CC's support to clean up the legacy stuff and this duplication (when I try to delete one of the two RuboCop repos it blows up).

image

@bbatsov
Copy link
Collaborator

bbatsov commented May 30, 2024

Okay, it seems I managed to delete one rubocop/rubocop, so the ID in the GH repo should be correct now.

@Earlopain
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fascinating, this does seem to have fixed the badge links in the readme. The coverage upload still fails though, is it really the same id still?

@Earlopain Earlopain deleted the speedier-ci branch May 30, 2024 12:25
@bbatsov
Copy link
Collaborator

bbatsov commented May 30, 2024

No idea. That was the only such ID I could find in the repo's settings on CodeClimate.

@bbatsov
Copy link
Collaborator

bbatsov commented May 30, 2024

Might be a good idea to create a separate issue about the code coverage issue, so we can track all investigation in a single place.

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