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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

CI consolidation roadmap #98

Closed
17 of 26 tasks
mathias-luedtke opened this issue Jan 14, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed
17 of 26 tasks

CI consolidation roadmap #98

mathias-luedtke opened this issue Jan 14, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@mathias-luedtke
Copy link
Member

mathias-luedtke commented Jan 14, 2017 •
edited
Loading

This issue proposes a roadmap for consolidating industrial_ci and moveit_ci as discussed in #75.

Preparations in industrial_ci

  • cleanup outdated code
  • merge or dismiss all open PRs
  • move all scripts except travis.sh into srcof industrial_ci package (standard ROS layout)
  • split scripts: ci_main.sh (entry point, interface checks, test branching), tests/source_tests.sh(default test),
  • factor out code into semantical functions in to-be-sourced scripts
  • factor out $BUILDER == catkin branches into builders/catkin.sh and branch to it from central place
  • add support for externally provided tests
  • replace TRAVIS_*variables by generic ones
  • run all tests in docker
  • add support for external docker images --> Run all tests in docker #116
  • add more unit tests, remove/replace some existing tests for speed-up (Improve code coverage #112)
  • add .travis.example.yml for documentation purposes, .travis.yml is for testing the test system..

Until here is just refactoring. These changes do not affect behaviour

Pull in moveit_ci, keep history if possible

At this stage all tests should work as-is for moveit_ci and industial_ci, but with move_it folding

  • decide new name and location if needed (TBD)
  • make superseded repos use consolidated repo under the hood

New features for consolidated repo:

Usability

@130s, @davetcoleman: what do you think?
This was referenced Jan 14, 2017
Merged
Merged
Merged
@130s
Copy link
Member

130s commented Jan 17, 2017

Thanks for putting together!
Easier-to-use is something to think about too. #105

This was referenced Jan 17, 2017
Closed
Closed
Merged
Closed
Merged
@mathias-luedtke mathias-luedtke mentioned this issue Feb 14, 2017
Closed
@davetcoleman
Copy link
Contributor

This looks good to me

@mathias-luedtke mathias-luedtke mentioned this issue Feb 16, 2017
Closed
@130s 130s mentioned this issue Mar 8, 2017
Open
@130s 130s mentioned this issue Mar 26, 2017
Closed
@130s
Copy link
Member

130s commented Apr 28, 2017

ROS buildfarm testing is not "free" ros/rosdistro#14820 (comment) and we should respect the effort of the maintainers there to minimize the server's cost, so making it easy to utilize online free service (e.g. Travis CI) is still very useful I think.

This was referenced Jul 20, 2017
Closed
Closed
@mathias-luedtke mathias-luedtke mentioned this issue Jul 28, 2017
Open
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
046666b 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location or not.
@130s 130s mentioned this issue Oct 17, 2017
Merged
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
d87d0da 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
3ddae35 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
a86b458 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
d6ef730 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
c6f197f 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
fabbcef 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 18, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
c6592d4 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 20, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
d496b89 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 20, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
d7b563d 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
130s added a commit to 130s/industrial_ci that referenced this issue Oct 27, 2017
@130s
WIP: Add catkin_lint feature.
7533b51 
An enhancement mentioned in ros-industrial#98

Some considerations:
- By default `catkin_lint` is run with `--strict` option, which makes the job fail even when there's only warning returned by catkin_lint. I'm not sure if we want to allow disabling --strict option on CI (those who just want the result without failing the CI job can run catkin_lint locally IMO).
- `catkin_lint` runs between build-install and tests, which I'm not sure is the best location.
@garethellis0 garethellis0 mentioned this issue Dec 14, 2017
Open
@130s 130s mentioned this issue Jan 13, 2018
Open
@130s 130s mentioned this issue Aug 16, 2018
Closed
@gavanderhoorn gavanderhoorn mentioned this issue Jun 11, 2020
Closed
2 tasks
@tylerjw
Copy link
Contributor

tylerjw commented Mar 25, 2021

test with https://github.com/ros-planning/moveit

you can probably check this one off... now that moveit is using industrial_ci (on the master branch for now, open pr's to old ros version branches).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@davetcoleman @mathias-luedtke @130s @tylerjw