In April, GitHub announced that the `macos-13` pool is available:
https://github.blog/changelog/2023-04-24-github-actions-macos-13-is-now-available/.
It is only a matter of time until the `macos-12` pool is going away,
therefore we should switch now, without pressure of a looming deadline.
Since the `macos-13` runners no longer include Python2, we also drop
specifically testing with Python2 and switch uniformly to Python3, see
https://github.com/actions/runner-images/blob/HEAD/images/macos/macos-13-Readme.md
for details about the software available on the `macos-13` pool's
runners.
Also, on macOS 13, Homebrew seems to install a `gcc@9` package that no
longer comes with a regular `unistd.h` (there seems only to be a
`ssp/unistd.h`), and hence builds would fail with:
In file included from base85.c:1:
git-compat-util.h:223:10: fatal error: unistd.h: No such file or directory
223 | #include <unistd.h>
| ^~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
The reason why we install GCC v9.x explicitly is historical, and back in
the days it was because it was the _newest_ version available via
Homebrew: 176441bfb5 (ci: build Git with GCC 9 in the 'osx-gcc' build
job, 2019-11-27).
To reinstate the spirit of that commit _and_ to fix that build failure,
let's switch to the now-newest GCC version: v13.x.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Tweak GitHub Actions CI so that pushing the same commit to multiple
branch tips at the same time will not waste building and testing
the same thing twice.
* jc/ci-skip-same-commit:
ci: avoid building from the same commit in parallel
When trying to obtain the MD5 of the Coverity Scan Tool (in order to
decide whether a cached version can be used or a new version has to be
downloaded), it is possible to get a 401 (Authorization required) due to
either an incorrect token, or even more likely due to an incorrect
Coverity project name.
Seeing an authorization failure that is caused by an incorrect project
name was somewhat surprising to me when developing the Coverity
workflow, as I found such a failure suggestive of an incorrect token
instead.
So let's provide a helpful error message about that specifically when
encountering authentication issues.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For completeness' sake, let's add support for submitting macOS builds to
Coverity Scan.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
By adding the repository variable `ENABLE_COVERITY_SCAN_ON_OS` with a
value, say, `["windows-latest"]`, this GitHub workflow now runs on
Windows, allowing to analyze Windows-specific issues.
This allows, say, the Git for Windows fork to submit Windows builds to
Coverity Scan instead of Linux builds.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
By default, the builds are submitted to the `git` project at
https://scan.coverity.com/projects/git.
The Git for Windows project would like to use this workflow, too,
though, and needs the builds to be submitted to the `git-for-windows`
Coverity project.
To that end, allow configuring the Coverity project name via the
repository variable, you guessed it, `COVERITY_PROJECT`. The default if
that variable is not configured or has an empty value is still `git`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It would add a 1GB+ download for every run, better cache it.
This is inspired by the GitHub Action `vapier/coverity-scan-action`,
however, it uses the finer-grained `restore`/`save` method to be able to
cache the Coverity Build Tool even if an unrelated step in the GitHub
workflow fails later on.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Coverity is a static analysis tool that detects and generates reports on
various security and code quality issues.
It is particularly useful when diagnosing memory safety issues which may
be used as part of exploiting a security vulnerability.
Coverity's website provides a service that accepts "builds" (which
contains the object files generated during a standard build as well as a
database generated by Coverity's scan tool).
Let's add a GitHub workflow to automate all of this. To avoid running it
without appropriate Coverity configuration (e.g. the token required to
use Coverity's services), the job only runs when the repository variable
"ENABLE_COVERITY_SCAN_FOR_BRANCHES" has been configured accordingly (see
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/variables for
details how to configure repository variables): It is expected to be a
valid JSON array of branch strings, e.g. `["main", "next"]`.
In addition, this workflow requires two repository secrets:
- COVERITY_SCAN_EMAIL: the email to send the report to, and
- COVERITY_SCAN_TOKEN: the Coverity token (look in the Project Settings
tab of your Coverity project).
Note: The initial version of this patch used
`vapier/coverity-scan-action` to benefit from that Action's caching of
the Coverity tool, which is rather large. Sadly, that Action only
supports Linux, and we want to have the option of building on Windows,
too. Besides, in the meantime Coverity requires `cov-configure` to be
runantime, and that Action was not adjusted accordingly, i.e. it seems
not to be maintained actively. Therefore it would seem prudent to
implement the steps manually instead of using that Action.
Initial-patch-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now that we have the CI_BRANCHES mechanism, there is no need for anybody
to use the ci/config/allow-ref mechanism. In the long run, we can
hopefully remove it and the whole "config" job, as it consumes CPU and
adds to the end-to-end latency of the whole workflow. But we don't want
to do that immediately, as people need time to migrate until the
CI_BRANCHES change has made it into the workflow file of every branch.
So let's issue a warning, which will appear in the "annotations" section
below the workflow result in GitHub's web interface. And let's remove
the sample allow-refs script, as we don't want to encourage anybody to
use it.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When we added config to skip CI for certain branches in e76eec3554 (ci:
allow per-branch config for GitHub Actions, 2020-05-07), there wasn't
any way to avoid spinning up a VM just to check the config. From the
developer's perspective this isn't too bad, as the "skipped" branches
complete successfully after running the config job (the workflow result
is "success" instead of "skipped", but that is a minor lie).
But we are still wasting time and GitHub's CPU to spin up a VM just to
check the result of a short shell script. At the time there wasn't any
way to avoid this. But they've since introduced repo-level variables
that should let us do the same thing:
https://github.blog/2023-01-10-introducing-required-workflows-and-configuration-variables-to-github-actions/#configuration-variables
This is more efficient, and as a bonus is probably less confusing to
configure (the existing system requires sticking your config on a magic
ref).
See the included docs for how to configure it.
The code itself is pretty simple: it checks the variable and skips the
config job if appropriate (and everything else depends on the config job
already). There are two slight inaccuracies here:
- we don't insist on branches, so this likewise applies to tag names
or other refs. I think in practice this is OK, and keeping the code
(and docs) short is more important than trying to be more exact. We
are targeting developers of git.git and their limited workflows.
- the match is done as a substring (so if you want to run CI for
"foobar", then branch "foo" will accidentally match). Again, this
should be OK in practice, as anybody who uses this is likely to only
specify a handful of well-known names. If we want to be more exact,
we can have the code check for adjoining spaces. Or even move to a
more general CI_CONFIG variable formatted as JSON. I went with this
scheme for the sake of simplicity.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
At times, we may need to push the same commit to multiple branches
in the same push. Rewinding 'next' to rebuild on top of 'master'
soon after a release is such an occasion. Making sure 'main' stays
in sync with 'master' to help those who expect that primary branch
of the project is named either of these is another.
We already use the branch name as a "concurrency group" key, but
that does not address the situation illustrated above.
Let's introduce another `concurrency` attribute, using the commit
hash as the concurrency group key, on the workflow run level, to
address this. This will hold any workflow run in the queued state
when there is already a workflow run targeting the same commit,
until that latter run completed. The `skip-if-redundant` check of
the second run will then have a chance to see whether the first
run succeeded.
The only caveat with this strategy is that only one workflow run
will be kept in the queued state by the `concurrency` feature: if
another run targeting the same commit is triggered, the
previously-queued run will be canceled. Considering the benefit,
this seems the smaller price to pay than to overload Git's build
agent pool with undesired workflow runs.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since the linux-asan-ubsan job runs using clang under Linux, there is
not much point in running a separate clang job. Any errors that a normal
clang compile-and-test cycle would find are likely to be a subset of
what the sanitizer job will find. Since this job takes ~14 minutes to
run in CI, this shaves off some of our CPU load (though it does not
affect end-to-end runtime, since it's typically run in parallel and is
not the longest job).
Technically this provides us with slightly less signal for a given run,
since you won't immediately know if a failure in the sanitizer job is
from using clang or from the sanitizers themselves. But it's generally
obvious from the logs, and anyway your next step would be to fix the
probvlem and re-run CI, since we expect all of these jobs to pass
normally.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When we started running sanitizers in CI via 1c0962c0c4 (ci: add address
and undefined sanitizer tasks, 2022-10-20), we ran them as two separate
CI jobs, since as that commit notes, the combination "seems to take
forever".
And indeed, it does with gcc. However, since the previous commit
switched to using clang, the situation is different, and we can save
some CPU by using a single job for both. Comparing before/after CI runs,
this saved about 14 minutes (the single combined job took 54m, versus
44m plus 24m for ASan and UBSan jobs, respectively). That's wall-clock
and not CPU, but since our jobs are mostly CPU-bound, the two should be
closely proportional.
This does increase the end-to-end time of a CI run, though, since before
this patch the two jobs could run in parallel, and the sanitizer job is
our longest single job. It also means that we won't get a separate
result for "this passed with UBSan but not with ASan" or vice versa).
But as 1c0962c0c4 noted, that is not a very useful signal in practice.
Below are some more detailed timings of gcc vs clang that I measured by
running the test suite on my local workstation. Each measurement counts
only the time to run the test suite with each compiler (not the compile
time itself). We'll focus on the wall-clock times for simplicity, though
the CPU times follow roughly similar trends.
Here's a run with CC=gcc as a baseline:
real 1m12.931s
user 9m30.566s
sys 8m9.538s
Running with SANITIZE=address increases the time by a factor of ~4.7x:
real 5m40.352s
user 49m37.044s
sys 36m42.950s
Running with SANITIZE=undefined increases the time by a factor of ~1.7x:
real 2m5.956s
user 12m42.847s
sys 19m27.067s
So let's call that 6.4 time units to run them separately (where a unit
is the time it takes to run the test suite with no sanitizers). As a
simplistic model, we might imagine that running them together would take
5.4 units (we save 1 unit because we are no longer running the test
suite twice, but just paying the sanitizer overhead on top of a single
run).
But that's not what happens. Running with SANITIZE=address,undefined
results in a factor of 9.3x:
real 11m9.817s
user 77m31.284s
sys 96m40.454s
So not only did we not get faster when doing them together, we actually
spent 1.5x as much CPU as doing them separately! And while those
wall-clock numbers might not look too terrible, keep in mind that this
is on an unloaded 8-core machine. In the CI environment, wall-clock
times will be much closer to CPU times. So not only are we wasting CPU,
but we risk hitting timeouts.
Now let's try the same thing with clang. Here's our no-sanitizer
baseline run, which is almost identical to the gcc one (which is quite
convenient, because we can keep using the same "time units" to get an
apples-to-apples comparison):
real 1m11.844s
user 9m28.313s
sys 8m8.240s
And now again with SANITIZE=address, we get a 5x factor (so slightly
worse than gcc's 4.7x, though I wouldn't read too much into it; there is
a fair bit of run-to-run noise):
real 6m7.662s
user 49m24.330s
sys 44m13.846s
And with SANITIZE=undefined, we are at 1.5x, slightly outperforming gcc
(though again, that's probably mostly noise):
real 1m50.028s
user 11m0.973s
sys 16m42.731s
So running them separately, our total cost is 6.5x. But if we combine
them in a single run (SANITIZE=address,undefined), we get:
real 6m51.804s
user 52m32.049s
sys 51m46.711s
which is a factor of 5.7x. That's along the lines we'd hoped for!
Running them together saves us almost a whole time unit. And that's not
counting any time spent outside the test suite itself (starting the job,
setting up the environment, compiling) that we're no longer duplicating
by having two jobs.
So clang behaves like we'd hope: the overhead to run the sanitizers is
additive as you add more sanitizers. Whereas gcc's numbers seem very
close to multiplicative, almost as if the sanitizers were enforcing
their overheads on each other (though that is purely a guess on what is
going on; ultimately what matters to us is the amount of time it takes).
And that roughly matches the CI improvement I saw. A "time unit" there
is more like 12 minutes, and the observed time savings was 14 minutes
(with the extra presumably coming from avoiding duplicated setup, etc).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Both gcc and clang support the "address" and "undefined" sanitizers.
However, they may produce different results. We've seen at least two
real world cases where gcc missed a UBSan problem but clang found it:
1. Clang's UBSan (using clang 14.0.6) found a string index that was
subtracted to "-1", causing an out-of-bounds read (curiously this
didn't trigger ASan, but that may be because the string was in the
argv memory, not stack or heap). Using gcc (version 12.2.0) didn't
find the same problem.
Original thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20230519005447.GA2955320@coredump.intra.peff.net/
2. Clang's UBSan (using clang 4.0.1) complained about pointer
arithmetic with NULL, but gcc at the time did not. This was in
2017, and modern gcc does seem to find the issue, though.
Original thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/32a8b949-638a-1784-7fba-948ae32206fc@web.de/
Since we don't otherwise have a particular preference for one compiler
over the other for this test, let's switch to the one that we think may
be more thorough.
Note that it's entirely possible that the two are simply _different_,
and we are trading off problems that gcc would find that clang wouldn't.
However, my subjective and anecdotal experience has been that clang's
sanitizer support is a bit more mature (e.g., I recall other oddities
around leak-checking where clang performed more sensibly).
Obviously running both and cross-checking the results would give us the
best coverage, but that's very expensive to run (and these are already
some of our most expensive CI jobs). So let's use clang as our best
guess, and we can re-evaluate if we get more data points.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
CI updates. We probably want a clean-up to move the long shell
script embedded in yaml file into a separate file, but that can
come later.
* cw/ci-whitespace:
ci (check-whitespace): move to actions/checkout@v3
ci (check-whitespace): add links to job output
ci (check-whitespace): suggest fixes for errors
As well as removing the explicit shell setting d8b21a0fe2 (CI: don't
explicitly pick "bash" shell outside of Windows, fix regression,
2022-12-07) also reverted the name of the print test failures step
introduced by 5aeb145780 (ci(github): bring back the 'print test
failures' step, 2022-06-08). This is unfortunate as 5aeb145780 added a
message to direct contributors to the "print test failures" step when a
test fails and that step is no-longer known by that name on the
non-windows ci jobs.
In principle we could update the message to print the correct name for
the step but then we'd have to deal with having two different names for
the same step on different jobs. It is simpler for the implementation
and contributors to use the same name for this step on all jobs.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Get rid of deprecation warnings in the CI runs. Also gets the latest
security patches.
Signed-off-by: Chris. Webster <chris@webstech.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A message in the step log will refer to the Summary output.
The job summary output is using markdown to improve readability. The
git commands and commits with errors are now in ordered lists.
Commits and files in error are links to the user's repository.
Signed-off-by: Chris. Webster <chris@webstech.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Make the errors more visible by adding them to the job summary and
display the git commands that will usually fix the problem.
Signed-off-by: Chris. Webster <chris@webstech.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It has been a frequent matter of contention that the win+VS jobs not
only take a long time to run, but are also more easily broken than the
other jobs (because they do not use the same `Makefile`-based builds as
all other jobs), and to make matters worse, these breakages are also
much harder to diagnose and fix than other jobs', especially for
contributors who are happy to stay away from Windows.
The purpose of these win+VS jobs is to maintain the CMake-based build
of Git, with the target audience being Visual Studio users on Windows
who are typically quite unfamiliar with `make` and POSIX shell
scripting, but the benefit of whose expertise we want for the Git
project nevertheless.
The CMake support was introduced for that specific purpose, and already
early on concerns were raised that it would put an undue burden on
contributors to ensure that these jobs pass in CI, when they do not have
access to Windows machines (nor want to have that).
This developer's initial hope was that it would be enough to fix win+VS
failures and provide the changes to be squashed into contributors'
patches, and that it would be worth the benefit of attracting
Windows-based developers' contributions.
Neither of these hopes have panned out.
To lower the frustration, and incidentally benefit from using way less
build minutes, let's just not run the win+VS jobs by default, which
appears to be the consensus of the mail thread leading up to
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqk0311blt.fsf@gitster.g/
Since the Git for Windows project still needs to at least try to attract
more of said Windows-based developers, let's keep the jobs, but disable
them everywhere except in Git for Windows' fork. This will help because
Git for Windows' branch thicket is "continuously rebased" via automation
to the `shears/maint`, `shears/main`, `shears/next` and `shears/seen`
branches at https://github.com/git-for-windows/git. That way, the Git
for Windows project will still be notified early on about potential
breakages, but the Git project won't be burdened with fixing them
anymore, which seems to be the best compromise we can get on this issue.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Update GitHub CI to use actions/checkout@v3; use of the older
checkout@v2 gets annoying deprecation notices.
* od/ci-use-checkout-v3-when-applicable:
ci(main): upgrade actions/checkout to v3
The deprecated versions of these Actions still use node.js 12 whereas
workflows will need to use node.js 16 to avoid problems going forward.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When the "js/ci-github-workflow-markup" topic was originally merged in
[1] it included a change to get rid of the "ci/print-test-failures.sh"
step[2]. This was then brought back in [3] as part of a fix-up patches
on top[4].
The problem was that [3] was not a revert of the relevant parts of
[2], but rather copy/pasted the "ci/print-test-failures.sh" step that
was present for the Windows job to all "ci/print-test-failures.sh"
steps. The Windows steps specified "shell: bash", but the non-Windows
ones did not.
This broke the "ci/print/test-failures.sh" step for the "linux-musl"
job, where we don't have a "bash" shell, just a "/bin/sh" (a
"dash"). This breakage was reported at the time[5], but hadn't been
fixed.
It would be sufficient to change this only for "linux-musl", but let's
change this for both "regular" and "dockerized" to omit the "shell"
line entirely, as we did before [2].
Let's also change undo the "name" change that [3] made while
copy/pasting the "print test failures" step for the Windows job. These
steps are now the same as they were before [2], except that the "if"
includes the "env.FAILED_TEST_ARTIFACTS" test.
1. fc5a070f59 (Merge branch 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup', 2022-06-07)
2. 08dccc8fc1 (ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the
GitHub workflow, 2022-05-21)
3. 5aeb145780 (ci(github): bring back the 'print test failures' step,
2022-06-08)
4. d0d96b8280 (Merge branch 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup', 2022-06-17)
5. https://lore.kernel.org/git/220725.86sfmpneqp.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Per [1] and the warnings our CI is emitting GitHub is phasing in
"macos-12" as their "macos-latest".
As with [2], let's pin our image to a specific version so that we're
not having it swept from under us, and our upgrade cycle can be more
predictable than whenever GitHub changes their images.
1. https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/6384
2. 0178420b9c (github-actions: run gcc-8 on ubuntu-20.04 image,
2022-11-25)
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To be up to date with actions/checkout opens the door to use the latest
features if necessary and get the latest security patches.
This also avoids a couple of deprecation warnings in the CI runs.
Note: The `actions/checkout` Action has been known to be broken in i686
containers as of v2, therefore we keep forcing it to v1 there. See
actions/runner#2115 for more details.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Dominguez <dominguez.celada@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Adjust the GitHub CI to newer ubuntu release.
* jx/ci-ubuntu-fix:
ci: install python on ubuntu
ci: use the same version of p4 on both Linux and macOS
ci: remove the pipe after "p4 -V" to catch errors
github-actions: run gcc-8 on ubuntu-20.04 image
GitHub starts to upgrade its runner image "ubuntu-latest" from version
"ubuntu-20.04" to version "ubuntu-22.04". It will fail to find and
install "gcc-8" package on the new runner image.
Change some of the runner images from "ubuntu-latest" to "ubuntu-20.04"
in order to install "gcc-8" as a dependency.
The first revision of this patch tried to replace "$runs_on_pool" in
"ci/*.sh" with a new "$runs_on_os" environment variable based on the
"os" field in the matrix strategy. But these "os" fields in matrix
strategies are obsolete legacies from commit [1] and commit [2], and
are no longer useful. So remove these unused "os" fields.
[1]: c08bb26010 (CI: rename the "Linux32" job to lower-case "linux32",
2021-11-23)
[2]: 25715419bf (CI: don't run "make test" twice in one job, 2021-11-23)
Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The old version we currently use runs in node.js v12.x, which is being
deprecated in GitHub Actions. The new version uses node.js v16.x.
Incidentally, this also avoids the warning about the deprecated
`::set-output::` workflow command because the newer version of the
`github-script` Action uses the recommended new way to specify outputs.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Whenever a branch is pushed to a repository which has GitHub Actions
enabled, a bunch of new workflow runs are started.
We sometimes see contributors push multiple branch updates in rapid
succession, which in conjunction with the impressive time swallowed by
even just a single CI build frequently leads to many queued-up runs.
This is particularly problematic in the case of Pull Requests where a
single contributor can easily (inadvertently) prevent timely builds for
other contributors when using a shared repository.
To help with this situation, let's use the `concurrency` feature of
GitHub workflows, essentially canceling GitHub workflow runs that are
obsoleted by more recent runs:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#concurrency
For workflows that *do* want the behavior in the pre-image of this
patch, they can use the ci-config feature to disable the new behavior by
adding an executable script on the ci-config branch called
'skip-concurrent' which terminates with a non-zero exit code.
Original-patch-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
The current code is clean with these two sanitizers, and we would
like to keep it that way by running the checks for any new code.
The signal of "passed with asan, but not ubsan" (or vice versa) is
not that useful in practice, so it is tempting to run both santizers
in a single task, but it seems to take forever, so tentatively let's
try having two separate ones.
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
GitHub Actions scheduled a brownout of Ubuntu 18.04, which canceled all
runs of the 'static-analysis' job in our CI runs. Update to 22.04 to
avoid this as the brownout later turns into a complete deprecation.
The use of 18.04 was set in d051ed77ee (.github/workflows/main.yml: run
static-analysis on bionic, 2021-02-08) due to the lack of Coccinelle
being available on 20.04 (which continues today).
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Git now shows better information in the GitHub workflow runs when a test
case failed. However, when a test case was implemented incorrectly and
therefore does not even run, nothing is shown.
Let's bring back the step that prints the full logs of the failed tests,
and to improve the user experience, print out an informational message
for readers so that they do not have to know/remember where to see the
full logs.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When investigating a test failure, the time that matters most is the
time it takes from getting aware of the failure to displaying the output
of the failing test case.
You currently have to know a lot of implementation details when
investigating test failures in the CI runs. The first step is easy: the
failed job is marked quite clearly, but when opening it, the failed step
is expanded, which in our case is the one running
`ci/run-build-and-tests.sh`. This step, most notably, only offers a
high-level view of what went wrong: it prints the output of `prove`
which merely tells the reader which test script failed.
The actually interesting part is in the detailed log of said failed
test script. But that log is shown in the CI run's step that runs
`ci/print-test-failures.sh`. And that step is _not_ expanded in the web
UI by default. It is even marked as "successful", which makes it very
easy to miss that there is useful information hidden in there.
Let's help the reader by showing the failed tests' detailed logs in the
step that is expanded automatically, i.e. directly after the test suite
failed.
This also helps the situation where the _build_ failed and the
`print-test-failures` step was executed under the assumption that the
_test suite_ failed, and consequently failed to find any failed tests.
An alternative way to implement this patch would be to source
`ci/print-test-failures.sh` in the `handle_test_failures` function to
show these logs. However, over the course of the next few commits, we
want to introduce some grouping which would be harder to achieve that
way (for example, we do want a leaner, and colored, preamble for each
failed test script, and it would be trickier to accommodate the lack of
nested groupings in GitHub workflows' output).
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Drop support for TravisCI and update test workflows at GitHub.
* ab/ci-updates:
CI: don't run "make test" twice in one job
CI: use "$runs_on_pool", not "$jobname" to select packages & config
CI: rename the "Linux32" job to lower-case "linux32"
CI: use shorter names that fit in UX tooltips
CI: remove Travis CI support
CI has been taught to catch some Unicode directional formatting
sequence that can be used in certain mischief.
* js/ci-no-directional-formatting:
ci: disallow directional formatting
The "linux-clang" and "linux-gcc" jobs both run "make test" twice, but
with different environment variables. Running these in sequence seems
to have been done to work around some constraint on Travis, see
ae59a4e44f (travis: run tests with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX, 2018-01-07).
By having these run in parallel we'll get jobs that finish much sooner
than they otherwise would have.
We can also simplify the control flow in "ci/run-build-and-tests.sh"
as a result, since we won't run "make test" twice we don't need to run
"make" twice at all, let's default to "make all test" after setting
the variables, and then override it to just "all" for the compile-only
tests.
Add a comment to clarify that new "test" targets should adjust
$MAKE_TARGETS rather than being added after the "case/esac". This
should avoid future confusion where e.g. the compilation-only
"pedantic" target will unexpectedly start running tests. See [1] and
[2].
1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211122.86ee78yxts.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211123.86ilwjujmd.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Change the setup hooks for the CI to use "$runs_on_pool" for the
"$regular" job. Now we won't need as much boilerplate when adding new
jobs to the "regular" matrix, see 956d2e4639 (tests: add a test mode
for SANITIZE=leak, run it in CI, 2021-09-23) for the last such commit.
I.e. now instead of needing to enumerate each jobname when we select
packages we can install things depending on the pool we're running
in.
That we didn't do this dates back to the now gone dependency on Travis
CI, but even if we add a new CI target in the future this'll be easier
to port over, since we can probably treat "ubuntu-latest" as a
stand-in for some recent Linux that can run "apt" commands.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As a follow-up to the preceding commit's shortening of CI job names,
rename the only job that starts with an upper-case letter to be
consistent with the rest. It was added in 88dedd5e72 (Travis: also
test on 32-bit Linux, 2017-03-05).
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Change the names used for the GitHub CI workflows to be short enough
to (mostly) fit in the pop-up tool-tips that GitHub shows in the
commit view. I.e. when mouse-clicking on the passing or failing
check-mark next to the commit subject.
These names are seemingly truncated to 17-20 characters followed by
three dots ("..."). Since a "CI/PR / " prefix is added to them the job
names looked like this before (windows-test and vs-test jobs omitted):
CI/PR / ci-config (p...
CI/PR / windows-buil...
CI/PR / vs-build (pu...
CI/PR / regular (lin...
CI/PR / regular (lin...
CI/PR / regular (os...
CI/PR / regular (os...
CI/PR / regular (lin...
CI/PR / regular (lin...
CI/PR / dockerized (...
CI/PR / dockerized (...
CI/PR / dockerized (...
CI/PR / static-anal...
CI/PR / sparse (pu...
CI/PR / documenta...
By omitting the "/PR" from the top-level name, and pushing the
$jobname to the front we'll now instead get:
CI / config (push)
CI / win build (push...
CI / win+VS build (...
CI / linux-clang (ub...
CI / linux-gcc (ubun...
CI / osx-clang (osx)...
CI / osx-gcc (osx) (...
CI / linux-gcc-defau...
CI / linux-leaks (ub...
CI / linux-musl (alp...
CI / Linux32 (daald/...
CI / pedantic (fedor...
CI / static-analysis...
CI / sparse (push)...
CI / documentation
We then have no truncation in the expanded view. See [1] for how it
looked before, [2] for a currently visible CI run using this commit,
and [3] for the GitHub workflow syntax involved being changed here.
Let's also use the existing "pool" field as before. It's occasionally
useful to know we're running on say ubuntu v.s. fedora. The "-latest"
suffix is useful to some[4], and since it's now at the end it doesn't
hurt readability in the short view compared to saying "ubuntu" or
"macos".
1. https://github.com/git/git/tree/master/
2. https://github.com/avar/git/tree/avar/ci-rm-travis-cleanup-ci-names-3
3. https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions
3. https://lore.kernel.org/git/d9b07ca5-b58d-a535-d25b-85d7f12e6295@github.com/
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Earlier a066a90d (ci(check-whitespace): restrict to the intended
commits, 2021-07-14) changed the check-whitespace task to stop using a
shallow clone, and cc003621 (ci(check-whitespace): stop requiring a
read/write token, 2021-07-14) changed the way how the errors the task
discovered is signaled back to the user.
They however forgot to update the comment that outlines what is done in
the task. Correct them.
Signed-off-by: Hans Krentel (hakre) <hanskrentel@yahoo.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As described in https://trojansource.codes/trojan-source.pdf, it is
possible to abuse directional formatting (a feature of Unicode) to
deceive human readers into interpreting code differently from compilers.
For example, an "if ()" expression could be enclosed in a comment, but
rendered as if it was outside of that comment. In effect, this could
fool a reviewer into misinterpreting the code flow as benign when it is
not.
It is highly unlikely that Git's source code wants to contain such
directional formatting in the first place, so let's just disallow it.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
