CI: Configure AppVeyor #937

am11 · 2015-01-20T07:06:53Z

This PR:

adds appveyor.yml to tests on builds on Windows.
adds AppVeyor badge to repo's readme.
updates dependencies' versions.

It is passing all the tests: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/am11/node-jscs/build/6.

Previously, for some crazy reason, it was failing with node version 0.11.14, so I removed version matrix from the configuration which renders it test only on latest stable version of node (v0.10.35). On TravisCI, jscs is also tested against node v0.10.35, so I presume the issue is common (probably due to some dependency?).

See #937 (comment).

Next steps:

After merging this, the repo owner (or collaborator under jscs-dev organisation) would need to logon once on Appveyor with GitHub credentials.
On account selection screen choose jscs-dev from dropdown list (label: Account) and press the GitHub button again.
On landing page click on Add Project and select node-jscs to keep the ball rolling.

🎉

coveralls · 2015-01-20T07:10:18Z

Coverage remained the same when pulling 6a70d8b on am11:master into b4ab228 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-01-20T07:25:42Z

Coverage remained the same when pulling d4a849b on am11:master into b4ab228 on jscs-dev:master.

markelog · 2015-01-20T10:29:47Z

-1 from me, one CI is enough, i think it's fair to say we depend on other tools for jscs to be cross-platform.

am11 · 2015-01-20T21:56:31Z

Alright. jshint repo has it, I thought it might be a good idea to configure appveyor for jscs as well (especially for curious contributors, who are not using Windows machine).

markelog · 2015-01-20T22:00:07Z

@mdevils what is your take on this?

mikesherov · 2015-01-24T18:30:52Z

FWIW, I don't think it can really hurt.

mikesherov · 2015-01-25T18:21:52Z

ping @mdevils

mdevils · 2015-01-30T02:20:51Z

+1 from me.

We had issues with windows and several times we broke windows.

mdevils · 2015-01-30T02:23:38Z

In this example tests were not run, just linting and style checking were included. Can you please enable tests?

coveralls · 2015-01-30T05:35:07Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.75% when pulling c167c0a on am11:master into 476ada5 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-01-30T05:41:27Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.75% when pulling 10c1813 on am11:master into 476ada5 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-01-30T05:47:54Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.75% when pulling 21cff41 on am11:master into 476ada5 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-01-30T05:49:40Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.75% when pulling 9d24239 on am11:master into 476ada5 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-01-30T06:01:28Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.75% when pulling 174ca21 on am11:master into 476ada5 on jscs-dev:master.

am11 · 2015-01-30T06:17:16Z

@mdevils I have enabled the tests. Here are some notes:

We have now three targets in our matrix: njs v0.10, njs v0.11 and io.js v1.0 based on http://www.appveyor.com/docs/lang/nodejs-iojs.
Node.js v0.10 has an issue with piping on Windows which causes the process to terminate as soon as there is some delay in test. This was fixed in njs v0.11. Meanwhile mocha also provides a workaround for v0.10: Output gets cut off if piped into another application mochajs/mocha#333 (comment) (which is unreleased as of this moment).
Locally these five tests are failing on Windows.

Meanwhile I have marked allow_faliure for v0.10 branch until mocha next build is release. For rest of matrix (njs v0.11 and io.js v1.0), IMO those tests should be fixed before removing those versions under allow_faliure block. Currently, all three of them are allowed to fail.

https://ci.appveyor.com/project/am11/node-jscs/build/20

@dougwilson, @FeodorFitsner, is it normal to get Command exited with code 4 (for instance in io.js turn also njs v0.11)? AFAICT, after running all the tests, it should exit with code 0 since the process has completed successfully (although some tests failed). Please CMIIW.

markelog · 2015-02-01T05:50:03Z

package.json

-    "rewire": "~2.1.0",
-    "sinon": "~1.12.0",
+    "rewire": "~2.1.4",
+    "sinon": "~1.12.2",


Is dependencies update required?

Nops, just did it in a separate commit. All is working fine though.

Alrighty, it's fine, could merge it with it

coveralls · 2015-02-01T06:01:05Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.77% when pulling 3f901a0 on am11:master into ccff217 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-02-01T06:08:12Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.77% when pulling a65fe4e on am11:master into ccff217 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-02-01T06:15:25Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.77% when pulling 74c74e9 on am11:master into ccff217 on jscs-dev:master.

mikesherov · 2015-02-01T13:06:51Z

README.md

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs)
+[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs)


Why is this line changed? Seems no different to me? @am11, are you using correct line endings?

@mikesherov, yeah that was both CRLF and BOM. Fixed by 3477d8a.

coveralls · 2015-02-01T14:55:59Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.77% when pulling 2f591b8 on am11:master into ccff217 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-02-01T14:58:21Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.77% when pulling 2d73306 on am11:master into ccff217 on jscs-dev:master.

coveralls · 2015-02-01T15:13:22Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.77% when pulling 3477d8a on am11:master into ccff217 on jscs-dev:master.

mikesherov · 2015-02-06T13:05:21Z

@am11 can you please rebase this. @markelog seems like we're good now with landing this?

markelog · 2015-02-06T13:08:53Z

appveyor.yml

+test_script:
+  - npm test
+
+build: off


Can you give me link to this setting?

Sure: http://www.appveyor.com/docs/appveyor-yml (Ctrl+F, search for: '174')

They use build slug for msbuild systems (mostly Visual Studio projects).

am11 · 2015-02-06T13:14:40Z

@mikesherov, done. :)

markelog · 2015-02-06T13:16:02Z

LGTM

coveralls · 2015-02-06T20:07:43Z

Coverage remained the same at 98.71% when pulling 6811bd9 on am11:master into 38459ea on jscs-dev:master.

am11 force-pushed the master branch from 6a70d8b to d4a849b Compare January 20, 2015 07:22

am11 force-pushed the master branch 10 times, most recently from 56e6ad0 to c167c0a Compare January 30, 2015 05:32

am11 force-pushed the master branch from c167c0a to 10c1813 Compare January 30, 2015 05:39

am11 force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 21cff41 to 9d24239 Compare January 30, 2015 05:47

am11 force-pushed the master branch from 9d24239 to 174ca21 Compare January 30, 2015 05:53

markelog reviewed Feb 1, 2015
View reviewed changes

am11 force-pushed the master branch from c1c94db to 3f901a0 Compare February 1, 2015 05:58

am11 force-pushed the master branch from 3f901a0 to a65fe4e Compare February 1, 2015 06:06

am11 force-pushed the master branch from a65fe4e to 74c74e9 Compare February 1, 2015 06:13

mikesherov reviewed Feb 1, 2015
View reviewed changes

am11 force-pushed the master branch from 74c74e9 to 2f591b8 Compare February 1, 2015 14:53

am11 force-pushed the master branch from 2f591b8 to 2d73306 Compare February 1, 2015 14:56

am11 force-pushed the master branch from 2d73306 to 3477d8a Compare February 1, 2015 15:11

markelog reviewed Feb 6, 2015
View reviewed changes

am11 force-pushed the master branch from 3477d8a to ece6dca Compare February 6, 2015 13:12

am11 added 3 commits February 6, 2015 22:03

CI: Adds appveyor.yml.

24a1883

Package: Updates dependencies.

e3b3c98

README: Adds appveyor badge.

6811bd9

am11 force-pushed the master branch from ece6dca to 6811bd9 Compare February 6, 2015 20:05

mikesherov closed this in ff6bb6c Feb 10, 2015

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

CI: Configure AppVeyor #937

CI: Configure AppVeyor #937

am11 commented Jan 20, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 20, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 20, 2015

markelog commented Jan 20, 2015

am11 commented Jan 20, 2015

markelog commented Jan 20, 2015

mikesherov commented Jan 24, 2015

mikesherov commented Jan 25, 2015

mdevils commented Jan 30, 2015

mdevils commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

am11 commented Jan 30, 2015

markelog Feb 1, 2015

am11 Feb 1, 2015

markelog Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

mikesherov Feb 1, 2015

am11 Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

mikesherov commented Feb 6, 2015

markelog Feb 6, 2015

am11 Feb 6, 2015

am11 Feb 6, 2015

am11 commented Feb 6, 2015

markelog commented Feb 6, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 6, 2015

		@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
		[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs)
		[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/jscs-dev/node-jscs)

CI: Configure AppVeyor #937

CI: Configure AppVeyor #937

Conversation

am11 commented Jan 20, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 20, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 20, 2015

markelog commented Jan 20, 2015

am11 commented Jan 20, 2015

markelog commented Jan 20, 2015

mikesherov commented Jan 24, 2015

mikesherov commented Jan 25, 2015

mdevils commented Jan 30, 2015

mdevils commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

coveralls commented Jan 30, 2015

am11 commented Jan 30, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2015

mikesherov commented Feb 6, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

am11 commented Feb 6, 2015

markelog commented Feb 6, 2015

coveralls commented Feb 6, 2015