Add santis runner pipeline

[aurianer]

This PR uses the fact that variables gets overriden by the latest one of the same name. So the .container-builder-cscs-gh200 is the one setting the latest tag. See the tag in one of the first pipeline of this PR, it is set to santis-container-builder.
I originally tried set the container builder in a gitlab variable and then use the variable in a extend but the variable was not expanded (cf the first job).
I also tried to set the container builder extends clause at the latest possible, but it was complaining when I was removing it from the template job.

Note: it changes the fetch method from urllib to curl because of the recurrent FetchErrors in spack while downloading the sources.

[pika-bot]

Performance test report

pika Performance

Comparison

BENCHMARK	RESULT
Task Overhead - Create Thread Hierarchical - Latch	-

Info

Property	Before	After
pika Commit	02f9de8	37b7661
pika Datetime	2023-08-21T11:44:55+00:00	2024-02-08T15:13:18+00:00
Hostname	nid01181	nid00025
Envfile
Clustername	daint	daint
Datetime	2023-08-21T13:50:51.685166+02:00	2024-02-08T16:21:50.493148+01:00
Compiler	/apps/daint/SSL/pika/spack/lib/spack/env/clang/clang++ 11.0.1	/apps/daint/SSL/pika/spack/lib/spack/env/clang/clang++ 11.0.1

Explanation of Symbols

Symbol	MEANING
=	No performance change (confidence interval within ±1%)
(=)	Probably no performance change (confidence interval within ±2%)
(+)/(-)	Very small performance improvement/degradation (≤1%)
+/-	Small performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
++/--	Large performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
+++/---	Very large performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
?	Probably no change, but quite large uncertainty (confidence interval with ±5%)
??	Unclear result, very large uncertainty (±10%)
???	Something unexpected…

[pika-bot]

Performance test report

pika Performance

Comparison

BENCHMARK	RESULT
Task Overhead - Create Thread Hierarchical - Latch	-

Info

Property	Before	After
pika Commit	02f9de8	8b6198d
pika Datetime	2023-08-21T11:44:55+00:00	2024-02-13T08:50:45+00:00
Hostname	nid01181	nid00881
Datetime	2023-08-21T13:50:51.685166+02:00	2024-02-13T09:54:21.064912+01:00
Envfile
Compiler	/apps/daint/SSL/pika/spack/lib/spack/env/clang/clang++ 11.0.1	/apps/daint/SSL/pika/spack/lib/spack/env/clang/clang++ 11.0.1
Clustername	daint	daint

Explanation of Symbols

Symbol	MEANING
=	No performance change (confidence interval within ±1%)
(=)	Probably no performance change (confidence interval within ±2%)
(+)/(-)	Very small performance improvement/degradation (≤1%)
+/-	Small performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
++/--	Large performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
+++/---	Very large performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
?	Probably no change, but quite large uncertainty (confidence interval with ±5%)
??	Unclear result, very large uncertainty (±10%)
???	Something unexpected…

[pika-bot]

Performance test report

pika Performance

Comparison

BENCHMARK	RESULT
Task Overhead - Create Thread Hierarchical - Latch	-

Info

Property	Before	After
pika Datetime	2023-08-21T11:44:55+00:00	2024-02-13T08:50:45+00:00
pika Commit	02f9de8	8b6198d
Hostname	nid01181	nid01183
Clustername	daint	daint
Compiler	/apps/daint/SSL/pika/spack/lib/spack/env/clang/clang++ 11.0.1	/apps/daint/SSL/pika/spack/lib/spack/env/clang/clang++ 11.0.1
Envfile
Datetime	2023-08-21T13:50:51.685166+02:00	2024-02-13T09:58:45.932149+01:00

Explanation of Symbols

Symbol	MEANING
=	No performance change (confidence interval within ±1%)
(=)	Probably no performance change (confidence interval within ±2%)
(+)/(-)	Very small performance improvement/degradation (≤1%)
+/-	Small performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
++/--	Large performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
+++/---	Very large performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
?	Probably no change, but quite large uncertainty (confidence interval with ±5%)
??	Unclear result, very large uncertainty (±10%)
???	Something unexpected…

[msimberg]

Looks good to me, thanks.

I would be in favour of moving the make_multiarch_image as a part of the spack_base stage so that all the pipelines still fit in the screen without having to scroll right

Did you decide not to do the above in the end? If so, why?

cf this job

Could you update the above in the PR description? The last cf this job has no link.

[aurianer]

Did you decide not to do the above in the end? If so, why?

I did it, it was not pushed sorry

Could you update the above in the PR description? The last cf this job has no link.

I removed the cf since the links will anyway point to nothing after a while with the cleanup Andreas but in place. It would take me some unecessary time to look it up again. Will try to be more thorough next time not to forget the link

[msimberg]

Did you decide not to do the above in the end? If so, why?

I did it, it was not pushed sorry

Could you update the above in the PR description? The last cf this job has no link.

I removed the cf since the links will anyway point to nothing after a while with the cleanup Andreas but in place. It would take me some unecessary time to look it up again. Will try to be more thorough next time not to forget the link

No worries, and thanks!

It looks like jfrog is unhappy. My approval stands so let's get this merged, but I'd like to see it get merged cleanly through CI, so let's see if jfrog starts behaving better soon and try again.