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

Remote docs #60

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2020
Merged

Remote docs #60

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2020

Conversation

bmorcos
Copy link
Contributor

@bmorcos bmorcos commented Apr 22, 2020

Motivation and context:

Switch to a remote script which actively tracks changes instead of custom, manually written script.

Interactions with other PRs:

This supersedes #56, we can close, and ignore that PR in favour of this one

How long should this take to review?

  • Quick (less than 40 lines changed or changes are straightforward)

Types of changes:

  • Non-code change (touches things like tests, documentation, build scripts)

Checklist:

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING.rst document.
  • N/A I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have included a changelog entry.
  • N/A I have tested this with all supported devices.
  • N/A I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • N/A I have run the test suite locally and all tests passed.

@bmorcos bmorcos mentioned this pull request Apr 22, 2020
2 tasks
rm -rf {{ docs_dir }}
cd ..
rm -rf nengo-fpga-"$TRAVIS_JOB_NUMBER"
conda env remove -y -n travis-ci-"$TRAVIS_JOB_NUMBER"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see this in the new generated script... Is this handled differently now?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No I think we should have this in there, I just neglected to add this in since I was relying on the templated scripts, but those are for VMs so we definitely want to put this back in 👍

Do we want to omit the miniconda install pieces too? I think it would be cleaner to leave that in so we don't need to modify the base tempalte as much... not sure if there are any adverse effects of it grabbing the installer and trying to install again?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we leave the miniconda install part in there, where does it install it to? Does it keep installing additional copies of miniconda every time the script runs?

Also, I'm not convinced putting in the conda cleanup should be in our scripts. I think it might be more an nengo-bones issue... It should do proper cleanup, VM or not.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As an example, the stuff being run on the azure cloud is a VM, but a persistent VM (i think), so you would still want the conda cleanup there.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bmorcos
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmorcos commented Apr 23, 2020

Couple notes I want to write down:

  • We should be scp'ing the docs FAILED_FILE back in the `after script section
  • We should probably implement some sort of lock for the FPGA resources

- Removed old docs template and ssh info
@bmorcos bmorcos merged commit c5ea91c into master Apr 24, 2020
@bmorcos bmorcos deleted the remote-docs branch April 24, 2020 17:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants