-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
Require AppVeyor to pass #41
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
Comments
I think it's stable at this point. The last several builds have all been green except for legitimate failures. I also flipped the option for 'rolling builds', which cancels an in-progress build if another commit comes in on the branch, which should help any speed issues. I haven't been paying close enough attention to tell whether it's fast enough, but in my limited experience AppVeyor has always finished faster than Travis if Travis was doing a full build. |
I say that, and then test_site fails again: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/python/cpython/build/3.7.0a0.416 |
That's a persnickety failure that keeps popping up. I think once that test failure is dealt with we can flip on the gating. |
I thought I had dealt with it with python/cpython#624. |
Is AppVeyor stable enough to turn this on as a requirement, @zware? |
I have observed flakiness with appveyor recently. I also found it limiting
that, unless you are an administrator, you can not re-run suite. Is there
a way to address this problem?
|
@orsenthil You're referring to python/cpython#997? I've not seen that failure before. A fairly simple way to force a re-run is to make some bogus commit, revert it, and push it; then you can either reset the branch back to the last 'real' commit and force-push it, or just remember to remove the bogus commits from the summary when you do the squash-merge (which should be done anyway :) ). I've just looked through all of the failing builds from the past 9 days, and they all appear to be legitimate (aside from the build for the above-linked PR). I think it's probably good enough to turn on, and reevaluate if there are complaints. I also still have python/cpython#954 open; it may or may not improve the situation in test_site, which is historically the most flakey test on AppVeyor. |
@zware I believe that a simpler approach to re-trigger CI is to close and reopen the PR. |
With python/cpython@7a99625 and python/cpython@523776c having just landed, I want to see if we can go a week without failures due to AppVeyor itself (people breaking Windows is another thing entirely). If we can go a week then I will flip on AppVeyor as required. |
So, is this something we want to flip on now? |
I think so; I think it's been relatively stable lately, and if it causes problems we can always switch it back off. |
Done! |
Not sure if we consider it stable enough, but it would be nice to have as a goal to make https://ci.appveyor.com/project/python/cpython be required just like we do for Travis.
@zware do you think this is ready to be flipped on? And is it fast enough?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: