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

Use GitHub Actions for CI builds #80

Merged
merged 24 commits into from Oct 19, 2020
Merged

Use GitHub Actions for CI builds #80

merged 24 commits into from Oct 19, 2020

Conversation

NickEntin
Copy link
Collaborator

This moves us from Travis CI to GitHub actions, and parallelizes our builds a bit more, which should speed up CI times.

I also bumped to the latest (non-beta) release of CocoaPods, since we were a bit behind.

@NickEntin NickEntin requested a review from dfed July 23, 2020 23:33
@NickEntin NickEntin force-pushed the entin/github-actions branch 3 times, most recently from a3c4dbb to a2c72ce Compare July 24, 2020 00:19
@NickEntin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

NickEntin commented Jul 24, 2020

Alright, this should be good now. Apologies for the noise.

The PR will still be marked as having missing checks, since it expects a Travis build. When I go to merge this, I'll switch the required checks over to GitHub Actions instead.

Copy link
Collaborator

@dfed dfed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this PR will require a major version bump, since as-is it This PR makes it too easy for us to accidentally drop support for Xcode 9.

.travis.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@dfed dfed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🙌

@NickEntin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Since #82 bumps the minimum supported Xcode version to 11, I think we can go ahead and drop the Travis config, since we don't need to build on Xcode 9 now.

@NickEntin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

So, interestingly, the flaky test isn't coming from the expectation timeout inside the test, but rather from the expectation timeout in tearDown when it tries to clear the log store.

/Users/runner/work/Aardvark/Aardvark/AardvarkTests/ARKLogDistributorTests.m:109: error: -[ARKLogDistributorTests test_logDistribution_performance] : Asynchronous wait failed: Exceeded timeout of 5 seconds, with unfulfilled expectations: "tearDown".

I'll revert the commit to bump the timeout in the test and investigate why clearing the log store is taking so long.

@NickEntin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Seeing the same failure in the Travis build on a different PR, so I don't think it's related to GitHub Actions.

@NickEntin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Temporarily disabled the flaky test to unblock this PR and #82. Reverted my commits that were attempting to fix it.

@dfed If you're alright with disabling the test for now, I'll go ahead and merge this and file an issue to track re-enabling that test once we figure out why it was flaking.

Copy link
Collaborator

@dfed dfed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM with some comments/questions

@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ - (void)test_distributeAllPendingLogsWithCompletionHandler_informsLogObserversOf

#pragma mark - Performance Tests

- (void)test_logDistribution_performance;
- (void)disabled_test_logDistribution_performance;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we leave a comment here explaining why this is disabled? Maybe include in the comment what the failure we're seeing is?

Also: is this failure only on Github Workflow? Or also on Travis?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't seen it on Travis in this PR, but I saw it in the Travis build on #82. I think it must be related to the Xcode version, although I haven't been able to repro locally, so there's likely other factors involved as well.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Addressed in e085b05

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
language: objective-c
osx_image: xcode9
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approving this dropping of Xcode 9 CI since it looks like we're dropping support in #82.

jobs:
xcode-build:
name: Xcode Build
runs-on: macOS-latest
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oooooh can we drop this version back to use something a little earlier than the latest?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@NickEntin NickEntin Oct 19, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unfortunately they don't have anything older than 10.15. 😞 Our options are 10.15 (latest released) or 11.0 (in beta).

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

2 participants