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

main.yml: removed java-8 runner image #1916

Closed

Conversation

pavly-gerges
Copy link
Contributor

@pavly-gerges pavly-gerges commented Jan 15, 2023

This PR attempts to remove the java-8 runner images since we are using gradle-7.6 with a release option 8:

  • Removed jdk 8 runner image.
  • Migrate deploy to the jdk 17 image (wip).

For more refer to the gradle docs on building jvm applications:
https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/building_java_projects.html#sec:java_cross_compilation

@pavly-gerges pavly-gerges marked this pull request as draft January 15, 2023 12:34
@pavly-gerges pavly-gerges marked this pull request as ready for review January 15, 2023 12:37
@Ali-RS Ali-RS added this to the v3.6.0 milestone Jan 15, 2023
@Ali-RS Ali-RS marked this pull request as draft January 15, 2023 17:40
@Ali-RS
Copy link
Member

Ali-RS commented Jan 15, 2023

I converted this to draft until it is completed.

Comment on lines -101 to -102
- jdk: 11
deploy: false
Copy link
Member

@Ali-RS Ali-RS Jan 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please revert this, and instead remove the - jdk: 17.

Also, please update this comment on line 83: # Build the engine, we only deploy from ubuntu-latest jdk8 to refer jdk17 instead of jdk8.

Copy link
Member

@Ali-RS Ali-RS Jan 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

By the way, what will happen if we just set deploy: true on jdk 17 instead of removing it from "include". Will it deploy with all OS?

The include config seems a bit confusing to me!

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pavly-gerges pavly-gerges Jan 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The include just adds additional flags for each runner image.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am going to explicitly evaluate the jdk11 to deploy: false and jdk17 to deploy: true and update the comments, I think it will be much better if we specify flags explicitly, do we agree on these changes ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and jdk17 to deploy: true

I wonder if it will also deploy with mac and windows as well if you set it to true? I need to take a look at the docs to see how include works.

Copy link
Member

@Ali-RS Ali-RS Jan 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And I will also create deploy: false explicitly for other systems (Mac and windows) to avoid confusion.

[mac:deploy=false, jdk17: deploy=true]
[windows:deploy=false, jdk17: deploy=true]

May the deploy defined for jdk overwrite the one in os?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will see.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pavly-gerges pavly-gerges Jan 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On the current master, this flag sets all the Ubuntu images (knowing that ubuntu images = 3, jdk-8/jdk-11/jdk-17) to true deploy, so all jdks should deploy unless one of them overrides the flag:

While deploy: false overrides the true on particularly jdk11 and jdk17 Ubuntu images.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Long story short, we shouldn't set deploy: true on a jdk runner because it will override the previously defined flag.

Copy link
Member

@Ali-RS Ali-RS Jan 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see.

So I believe we should keep this

          - jdk: 11
            deploy: false

and remove this

          - jdk: 17
            deploy: false

to make it deploy with java 17.

Comment on lines 98 to 100
osName: windows
- os: macOS-latest
osName: mac
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we need to also explicitly specify deploy: false on windows and mac os.

@Ali-RS Ali-RS added the buildscript An issue with the buildscript label Jan 16, 2023
@Ali-RS
Copy link
Member

Ali-RS commented Jan 18, 2023

Finished this in #1922

@Ali-RS Ali-RS closed this Jan 18, 2023
@pavly-gerges
Copy link
Contributor Author

Finished this in #1922

FYI, closing others PR without their knowledge may lead to a bad impact on the engine contributors on the long run (one will think why on earth would i open a PR when someone else will do and everything will start to get teared down in the knowledge of others will do all the needed tasks, but this is not the fact), for me, it won't, but it may perceived from others as disrespect, and/or they may have another benefit thoughts, ideas or tasks to add on a WIP PR that could improve the engine productivity.....

I don't think that this applies to this PR anyway, since we are just improving things related to a secondary build script, but anyway you got my point.

With your permission, i am going to review your merged PR again to give out loud my suggestions, if they are not good, no problem at all, i will keep the ideas for my projects.

@pavly-gerges pavly-gerges deleted the remove-java8-runner branch January 20, 2023 14:46
@Ali-RS
Copy link
Member

Ali-RS commented Jan 20, 2023

@Scrappers-glitch, I'm sorry about this! I agree with you that I must have asked before I wanted to close this and submit another PR, my fault. Sorry again!

With your permission, i am going to review your merged PR again

Sure, please let me know if I need to improve #1922.
Thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
buildscript An issue with the buildscript
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants