-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
detect incompatible CI rustc options more precisely #129052
detect incompatible CI rustc options more precisely #129052
Conversation
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Previously, the logic here was simply checking whether the option was set in `config.toml`. This approach was not manageable in our CI runners as we set so many options in config.toml. In reality, those values are not incompatible since they are usually the same value used to generate the CI rustc. Now, the new logic compares the configuration values with the values used to generate the CI rustc, so we get more precise results and make the process more manageable. Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
This PR modifies If appropriate, please update |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome! Left a few comments. I think that we might need a bit more robust handling of the CI config in cases where the config changes.
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
e9677ac
to
ac25a81
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
ac25a81
to
244feb9
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. Left a few more comments.
I think we should deal with the fallibility of config parsing before we merge this though, because without it any config changes might result in a broken CI when download-rustc
is used.
b952401
to
fb06efd
Compare
@rustbot author (due to #129052 (comment)) |
This is much better than what we had before. Let's try it and see how well it works in practice. @bors r+ rollup=never |
@bors r- (missed something) |
af6eedc
to
469d593
Compare
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (27b93da): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 4.5%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResults (secondary 2.7%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 751.027s -> 751.393s (0.05%) |
Previously, the logic here was simply checking whether the option was set in
config.toml
. This approach was not manageable in our CI runners as we set so many options in config.toml. In reality, those values are not incompatible since they are usually the same value used to generate the CI rustc. Now, the new logic compares the configuration values with the values used to generate the CI rustc, so we get more precise results and make the process more manageable.r? Kobzol
Blocker for #122709