Re: [Zope-dev] zope-tests - FAILED: 20, OK: 6
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Michael Howitz <mac@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 10.04.2017 um 16:48 schrieb Jim Fulton <jim@jimfulton.info>: […]
I've added appveyor tests for ZODB: https://ci.appveyor.com/ project/jimfulton/zodb/build/1.0.27
Jim, is this your private AppVeyor account?
Yes.
Is there a common Zope foundation account, too?
I have no idea. IDK if there's a way to set up group accounts. persistent is tested with appveyor. IDK how that was set up.
[1] winbot / z3c.contents_py_270_win32 [2] winbot / z3c.contents_py_270_win64 [3] winbot / z3c.jsonrpc_py_270_win32 [4] winbot / z3c.jsonrpc_py_270_win64 [5] winbot / z3c.ptcompat_py_270_win64 [6] winbot / z3c.testing_py_270_win32 [7] winbot / zc.catalog_py_270_win64 [8] winbot / zc.resourcelibrary_py_270_win32 [16] winbot / zope.index_py_270_win32
Although these ones do not seem to be too widely used (especially on Windows) they could be ported to AppVeyor, too.
I would hope they all could be, if anyone cares. If not, why are we spamming people here? :)
[9] winbot / zope.app.applicationcontrol_py_270_win32 [10] winbot / zope.app.authentication_py_270_win32 [11] winbot / zope.app.authentication_py_270_win64 [12] winbot / zope.app.component_py_270_win32 [13] winbot / zope.app.component_py_270_win64 [14] winbot / zope.app.testing_py_270_win32 [15] winbot / zope.app.testing_py_270_win64
IMHO these ones are deprecated, so they can be dropped altogether.
Cool. Adam?
[17] winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 [18] winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 [19] winbot / ztk_dev py_330_win32 [20] winbot / ztk_dev py_330_win64
It would be nice to have these ones on AppVeyor, too.
And the six that are passing too. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://jimfulton.info
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:50:58AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Michael Howitz <[1]mac@gmx.net> wrote: Am 10.04.2017 um 16:48 schrieb Jim Fulton <[2]jim@jimfulton.info>: […] > I've added appveyor tests for ZODB: [3]https://ci.appveyor.com/project/ jimfulton/zodb/build/1.0.27
Jim, is this your private AppVeyor account?
Yes.
Is there a common Zope foundation account, too?
I have no idea. IDK if there's a way to set up group accounts.
AFAIK there isn't one currently.
persistent is tested with appveyor. IDK how that was set up.
A bunch of ZopeFoundation repos are currently set up with my personal AppVeyor account. I'm not very happy about it (I don't want to be a bottleneck), and would prefer a shared Zope Foundation account. (I like the way Travis CI links things to the GitHub owner organisation, and uses GitHub logins to grant access. I wish AppVeyor could do that too, but AFAIK it can't.) Marius Gedminas -- <AdamV> SamB: PHP's basic control structure is the "database timeout error". -- from Twisted.Quotes
Am 11.04.2017 um 14:50 schrieb Jim Fulton <jim@jimfulton.info>: […]
It would be nice to have these ones on AppVeyor, too.
And the six that are passing too.
According to http://winbot.zope.org/builders there are many more builders which currently succeed. I didn’t even know that so many packages are tested using buildbot. It would cost a huge effort to migrate all of them (or at least the not deprecated ones) to AppVeyor. Maybe it would be easier to have a Zopefoundation AppVeyor account and create a build there if someone has a Windows only problem with a package or works on a package which contains C code. This would allow to disable the buildbot and have a strategy for upcoming Windows problems. What do you think? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Michael Howitz
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Michael Howitz <icemac@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 11.04.2017 um 14:50 schrieb Jim Fulton <jim@jimfulton.info>: […]
It would be nice to have these ones on AppVeyor, too.
And the six that are passing too.
According to http://winbot.zope.org/builders there are many more builders which currently succeed. I didn’t even know that so many packages are tested using buildbot.
It would cost a huge effort to migrate all of them (or at least the not deprecated ones) to AppVeyor. Maybe it would be easier to have a Zopefoundation AppVeyor account and create a build there if someone has a Windows only problem with a package or works on a package which contains C code. This would allow to disable the buildbot and have a strategy for upcoming Windows problems.
What do you think?
I think we should leave them be for now. I don't think we should be seeking chores. I regret my comment about the "six". :) In my defence, I said "it would be nice" as opposed to "we must". I also endorse dropping tests for obsolete or unimportant packages with failing tests. I don't think anyone has paid much attention to these emails, given how long they've gone without change. For the most part they're just spam. Also, the fact that it's so hard to change the buildbot config (I tried and failed for ZODB), means that if anyone actually cared about a project, they would probably move it to appveyor. (Something that Travis and Appveyor seem to get is that people who use CI often don't give a pit about CI, they just want their software to work. Looking at a Jenkins screen makes me want to stop writing software.) Having written the above ... IMO, we should give up on buildot, or at least the automated emails. IDK if any Zope projects find it useful. Clearly the ones whose tests have been failing forever don't. (As someone pointed out, many of these are obsolete.) I would leave it up to people who care about packages to convert them, or to pay attention to buildbot. I *greatly* appreciate the efforts of Adam and whoever else worked on buildbot and generosity of the PSF (or was it rackspace) in providing resources. It's just not clear to me that it's providing benefit. <shrug> If there's a way to create group accounts for Travis and Appveyor, I'd wildly support using that. I set up Appveyor for ZODB out of desperation (and because I was making a change that was likely to provoke issues on Windows). Jim -- Jim Fulton http://jimfulton.info
participants (3)
-
Jim Fulton -
Marius Gedminas -
Michael Howitz