[release/2.1] Add portable builds to CI.#718
Conversation
crummel
changed the title
crummel
force-pushed
the
addPortableBuilds
branch
3 times, most recently
from
1b3aab1 to
d1033eb
Compare
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
crummel
force-pushed
the
addPortableBuilds
branch
from
d1033eb to
36d39a6
Compare
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
dagood
left a comment
dagood
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, with a few maintenance/readability suggestions.
| def newJobName = Utilities.getFullJobName(project, "${os}_${config}", true); | ||
| def contextString = "${os} ${configuration}"; | ||
| if (portable) { | ||
| contextString = "${os} ${configuration} Portable"; |
| { | ||
| def shortJobName = "${os}_${configuration}"; | ||
| if (portable) { | ||
| shortJobName = "${os}_${configuration}_Portable"; |
| ["Ubuntu16.04", "Fedora24", "Debian8.4", "RHEL7.2", "Windows_NT", "CentOS7.1", "OSX10.12"].each { os -> | ||
| ["Release", "Debug"].each { configuration -> | ||
| addPushJob(project, branch, os, configuration); | ||
| [true, false].each { portability -> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Stick with portable? Fits better with true, false, IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, had started with these as strings and missed this one.
| def newJobName = Utilities.getFullJobName(project, "${os}_${configuration}", true); | ||
| def config = configuration; | ||
| if (portable) { | ||
| config = "${configuration}_Portable" |
|
One other thing I was considering was adding portable tarball or unshared builds - do we want these? They're a bit more work to add but I can refactor some. |
crummel
force-pushed
the
addPortableBuilds
branch
from
18c9164 to
b0afcd1
Compare
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please |
|
I can't think of a reason setting portable would fail during offline/tarball but not online, but on the other hand it seems like it would be good to know if it doesn't work. Maybe since offline/tarball involves doing an online build first, we could only do an offline build for portable=true on PRs? |
|
Hmm, I'm not sure doing a non-portable online build followed by a portable offline build will work - wouldn't we possibly get some prebuilts with the wrong RID? I'll give this a try. |
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
1 similar comment
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
crummel
force-pushed
the
addPortableBuilds
branch
from
b0afcd1 to
8a64fe5
Compare
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
5 similar comments
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
|
When you're done with the CI testing (or merge this) could you let me know? I'd also like to test out #776 in practice. |
|
I think this part of it is good to merge now, it's just that the new builds will fail until #717 is in, and that's essentially waiting on https://github.com/dotnet/core-eng/issues/4204 now. I'm fine with merging this now if those builds failing is okay for now. |
|
I don't think we should merge this PR in that case, I just want to run the CI generation tests on my PR so you'd have to regenerate again on this PR if you want to test again. I'm going ahead with that, then. |
|
Sounds good! |
crummel
force-pushed
the
addPortableBuilds
branch
from
7073061 to
ad53bb5
Compare
|
@dotnet-bot test CI please. |
3 participants
Skip CI please.