> > Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before Icommit> > it? > > I am afraid not. >But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test the builder that I mentioned recently [1]. I say partially because I ended up removing all the builders apart from my own. @Dmitri - Has anyone considered reorganising zorg so it is easier to test a builder locally? [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-August/075287.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140804/902de825/attachment.html>
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote:>> > Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I >> > commit >> > it? >> >> I am afraid not. >> > > But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test the > builder that I mentioned recently [1].Nice write-up!> I say partially because I ended up removing all the builders apart from my > own. > > @Dmitri - Has anyone considered reorganising zorg so it is easier to test a > builder locally?I am not aware of such effort. However, it would be great to be able to easily set up a buildmaster locally. This will probably facilitate further refactorings of zorg code. Currently developers tend not to touch it because they can not run it. Dmitri -- main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/
On 04/08/2014 16:20, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I >>>> commit >>>> it? >>> >>> I am afraid not. >>> >> >> But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test the >> builder that I mentioned recently [1]. > > Nice write-up! > >> I say partially because I ended up removing all the builders apart from my >> own. >> >> @Dmitri - Has anyone considered reorganising zorg so it is easier to test a >> builder locally? > > I am not aware of such effort. However, it would be great to be able > to easily set up a buildmaster locally. This will probably facilitate > further refactorings of zorg code. Currently developers tend not to > touch it because they can not run it.I commonly test my changes with a 'hacked' buildbot where references to non-existing files are removed and buildslave passwords are hardcoded. It would be great if we could instead have a 'testing' mode, where the user can provide a table with buildslave names and passwords and the buildbot just takes this to accept its buildslaves. Cheers, Tobias