Skip to content

Fix CI #4

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 10, 2023
Merged

Fix CI #4

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 10, 2023

Conversation

DeeDeeG
Copy link
Member

@DeeDeeG DeeDeeG commented Dec 2, 2023

I turned on GitHub Actions for this repository and checked if it was still working after all these months.

It was not.

This branch adds some workarounds/fixes/updates so there can be (passing) CI at this repo again!

This is a workaround for Python 3.12+ with old node-gyp
Older node-gyp was buggier/had a race condition
when trying to grab and cache the node headers
multiple times in parallel. Workaround is to install once
ahead of time, or upgrade to newer node-gyp.
@DeeDeeG
Copy link
Member Author

DeeDeeG commented Dec 2, 2023

So, the Windows workaround (a7ab301) is for an intermittent issue.

And installing an extra temporary copy of node-gyp like this just to fetch the headers (npx node-gyp install) is slow (1 minute and 15 seconds out of a 4 minute 50 second total run. Yikes.)

We can consider not including this workaround and just being willing to re-run failed jobs on the occasions where the race condition causes the build to fail. Or perhaps use something like nick-fields/retry action on the "install dependencies" step, maybe for Windows only.

We could also do npm install -g npm@latest (newer npm = newer node-gyp, where the issue is fixed). This might be a tad slow in and of itself, though.

I dunno. Anyway, doing the workaround as I did it here is reliable but slow. Just a fair warning or heads-up and opening for discussion if people prefer we deal with it another way.

Copy link
Member

@confused-Techie confused-Techie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great to me. The additions here are relatively standard stuff when compared to the GitHub Actions on the main Pulsar repo, so I see no issues here.

Lets go ahead and get this one merged!

@confused-Techie confused-Techie merged commit 98e96a0 into master Dec 10, 2023
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.

2 participants