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

Move the clang-format check from CircleCI to GitHub actions. #376

Merged
1 commit merged into from
Mar 20, 2024

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Mar 19, 2024

Move the clang-format check from CircleCI to GitHub actions.

Related to #248.

Signed-off-by: thb-sb thomas.bailleux@sandboxquantum.com

@ghost ghost force-pushed the pr376 branch 2 times, most recently from 737fee4 to c73bbeb Compare March 19, 2024 07:39
@ghost ghost self-assigned this Mar 19, 2024
@ghost ghost marked this pull request as ready for review March 19, 2024 07:42
@ghost ghost requested a review from baentsch as a code owner March 19, 2024 07:42
@ghost ghost requested a review from bhess March 19, 2024 09:35
Copy link
Member

@bhess bhess left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When moving this over to Github CI, would it make sense to make the heavier jobs dependent on the coding style check succeeding, such as done in liboqs?
https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs/blob/d183ed326609a0e0087f339b0eb948de9d33035d/.github/workflows/unix.yml#L42

@baentsch
Copy link
Member

make the heavier jobs dependent on the coding style check succeeding

Indeed, the environment would say Thanks.

That said, OQS so far already did much more than "typical projects" in this regards/not blindly running CI in the various projects -- but there's still quite some way to go: What about OQS "institutes" this? Ask contributors to use "[skip ci]" as often as possible, do (CI) spot checks before doing "heavy lifting", possibly move more CI to the weekly tests, reduce the repetition of the profiling runs, etc? I know, just like project openness probably another low priority issue to the LinuxFoundation masters of OQS, but maybe worthwhile a thought?

@ghost ghost force-pushed the pr376 branch 8 times, most recently from 4580807 to 1f46867 Compare March 20, 2024 07:24
Related to #248.


Signed-off-by: thb-sb <thomas.bailleux@sandboxquantum.com>
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Mar 20, 2024

When moving this over to Github CI, would it make sense to make the heavier jobs dependent on the coding style check succeeding, such as done in liboqs? https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs/blob/d183ed326609a0e0087f339b0eb948de9d33035d/.github/workflows/unix.yml#L42

I agree!
Done it in c6646cf.

Copy link
Member

@bhess bhess left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you Thomas, LGTM.

What about OQS "institutes" this? Ask contributors to use "[skip ci]" as often as possible, do (CI) spot checks before doing "heavy lifting", possibly move more CI to the weekly tests, reduce the repetition of the profiling runs, etc?

I really like the idea @baentsch. I hope you don't mind that I created an issue about the topic.

@ghost ghost merged commit 66ee770 into open-quantum-safe:main Mar 20, 2024
52 checks passed
@ghost ghost deleted the pr376 branch March 20, 2024 09:10
@baentsch
Copy link
Member

I hope you don't mind that I created an open-quantum-safe/tsc#5 about the topic.

I never mind good ideas :-) And if it's not posted by me, our new LinuxFoundation masters might actually react positively about them.

This pull request was closed.
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.

2 participants