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

Fix Oscar.build() #3728

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
May 22, 2024
Merged

Fix Oscar.build() #3728

merged 8 commits into from
May 22, 2024

Conversation

aaruni96
Copy link
Member

Fixes Oscar.build() again, and adds generic CPU target as default.

[skip ci] as it doesn't change anything else which the tests might check for.

An important/questionable change I am making is to set peristent_tasks to false in Aqua.jl. When true, Oscar.build() fails for some reason I don't really understand. I am not sure what the consequences to not testing for that are.

@lgoettgens I think you added the Aqua tests. Do you know?

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 14, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.25%. Comparing base (cb54bfa) to head (f287739).
Report is 28 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3728      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.35%   81.25%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         577      580       +3     
  Lines       78653    79159     +506     
==========================================
+ Hits        63991    64323     +332     
- Misses      14662    14836     +174     

see 47 files with indirect coverage changes

@thofma
Copy link
Collaborator

thofma commented May 14, 2024

How long does that take to run typically? Maybe we can add a CI job to not break it again accidentally.

@lgoettgens
Copy link
Member

Can you put the error log when enabling the Aqua test again here? Then I can have a look tomorrow

@lgoettgens
Copy link
Member

Can you put the error log when enabling the Aqua test again here? Then I can have a look tomorrow

Of course you would need to remove the restriction to the short tests for this again, as the Aqua tests are part of the long tests.

system/Build.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Use portable defaults

Co-authored-by: Max Horn <max@quendi.de>
test/Aqua.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lgoettgens
Copy link
Member

As I understand the running of tests in the pkgimage process is to exercise "common usecases" and compile them into the pkgimage. Nothing of the Aqua tests exercises any code from Oscar, so I think these tests should never be called from the pkgimage creation process.

Co-authored-by: Lars Göttgens <lars.goettgens@gmail.com>
@aaruni96
Copy link
Member Author

How long does that take to run typically?

With just the short tests, it takes ~40 minutes on my workstation (~30 minutes for the tests, ~10 minutes for the system image building).

As far as I know this cannot be sped up via parallelisation, because all the code needs to execute on the process which will also eventually create the system image.

@thofma
Copy link
Collaborator

thofma commented May 15, 2024

How long does that take to run typically?

With just the short tests, it takes ~40 minutes on my workstation (~30 minutes for the tests, ~10 minutes for the system image building).

As far as I know this cannot be sped up via parallelisation, because all the code needs to execute on the process which will also eventually create the system image.

Thanks for the numbers. I guess this makes a CI job an option for this, but this can be added later.

@aaruni96 aaruni96 marked this pull request as ready for review May 17, 2024 12:53
@fingolfin fingolfin merged commit 5e39d99 into oscar-system:master May 22, 2024
29 checks passed
@aaruni96 aaruni96 added the backport 1.0.x Should be backported to the release 1.0 branch label Jun 14, 2024
benlorenz pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2024
(cherry picked from commit 5e39d99)
@benlorenz benlorenz mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2024
@benlorenz benlorenz removed the backport 1.0.x Should be backported to the release 1.0 branch label Jun 17, 2024
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.

5 participants