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

Integration on GitLab CI #76

Closed
130s opened this issue Jul 19, 2016 · 7 comments
Closed

Integration on GitLab CI #76

130s opened this issue Jul 19, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@130s
Copy link
Member

130s commented Jul 19, 2016

From @VictorLamoine at ML:

Is there anything that would prevent me from adapting the existing scripts to GitLab CI (GitLab Runner)?
I'm looking forward to use CI on private repositories hosted on GitLab and want to know if it is possible.

Running industrial_ci on non-Travis CI systems should be possible; main script is currently named as travis.sh, but should be designed to be agnostic from any particular CI system. However I haven't tested on other CIs so can't guarantee.

Once (if) it works, how should we handle that, make a new branch in the GitHub industrial_ci repository?

In your CI config on Gitlab, you need to define the same environment variables and run git clone, as you do for Travis in your .travis.yml.

I'd be curious how things go with you, so feel free to ask further here if you face issues.

@130s
Copy link
Member Author

130s commented Aug 22, 2016

Closing for inactivity. Please feel free to reopen.

@130s 130s closed this as completed Aug 22, 2016
@130s
Copy link
Member Author

130s commented Sep 6, 2016

@VictorLamoine if you had a chance to integrate industrial_ci on GitLab, did it work?

@VictorLamoine
Copy link
Contributor

VictorLamoine commented Jan 2, 2017

I have made a working version of an industrial_ci equivalent for GitLab. Right now it is much poorer in terms of functionalities.

https://gitlab.com/VictorLamoine/ros_gitlab_ci

Thanks to Docker this was pretty easy to do!

@130s
Copy link
Member Author

130s commented Jan 3, 2017

What I wanted to mean is that it would have been great if industrial_ci would be extended to accomodate new CI platform such as GitLab, rather than creating a whole new ci package, so that we can share the common codes and reduce maintenance effort on CI scripts that has been made sporadically throughout the entire ROS community without particular purpose. And to emphasize that it's not limited to Travis CI, I named the package to ci when I originally forked jsk_travis ros-industrial/ros_industrial_meetings#1 (comment).

I understand that there are cases that creating new ci config makes sense for the needs (e.g. moveit_ci was needed to handle their needs #75). I'm not experienced at all with it but are there specific requirements GitLab enforced you to create a new CI pkg @VictorLamoine ? I'm simply curious and if there's a chance of integrating the two I'll be happy to cooperate.

@VictorLamoine
Copy link
Contributor

I understand what you mean, it would be nice to be able to use the same CI repository with Travis, GitLab etc.

  • First motivation was being able to work without bothering people managing this repository
  • I wanted to learn how Docker works (never used it before)
  • I first tried to run the original scripts but it was kind of a nightmare, the scripts here are very long and quite complex.
  • The folding thing doesn't work as is in GitLab.
  • I did not try installing ROS from apt like you do in your scripts (execpt from Kinetic)

I don't think there are any technical obstacles into integrating GitLab CI into these scripts.
Last but not least: I don't have much "free" time to work on these kind of things.

If someone has some time available to work on this I'll be happy to spend an hour explaining what I have done and how my repository works; but I can't integrate my current scripts inside this repository right now because I lack time.

@130s
Copy link
Member Author

130s commented Jan 4, 2017

Thanks for the explanation @VictorLamoine. Then I reopen this and leave it open to mark as a possible future-todo.

@130s 130s reopened this Jan 4, 2017
@130s
Copy link
Member Author

130s commented Mar 26, 2017

Closed via #98.

@130s 130s closed this as completed Mar 26, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants