Skip to content

Cleanup GitHub actions #7480

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 5 commits into from
Jan 16, 2023
Merged

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

Please see individual commit messages.

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

Copy link
Contributor

@NlightNFotis NlightNFotis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, some minor questions.

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ on:
- '**'

jobs:
# This job takes approximately 18 minutes
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I understand that these are informational only, but how are we going to track any changes to these numbers?

Or is the plan to be more laid back and only update them if we casually observe any change?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For now I was thinking keep this informal, but maybe we should go a little further and do actual checks? Don't know, I'm open to suggestions.

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ jobs:
- name: Build CBMC tools
run: |
make -C src minisat2-download
make -C src CXX='ccache /usr/bin/g++' cbmc.dir goto-cc.dir goto-diff.dir -j2
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why did the compiler change here?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is to make sure we can actually use the compiler cache (and don't trash it by putting a different configuration in there).

When looking to optimise CI workflows it is useful to have an idea about
the current state of affairs.
1. We must use the same build configuration when sharing a particular
   cache.
2. Don't create additional cache entries when we can safely use one of
   the existing ones.
Use single-instruction commands where possible, making the code use less
vertical space (and making different jobs easier to compare).
This will make sure tests still pass on the merged code base. Also, this
will make sure caches are actually available on first run in pull
requests: GitHub caches are access restricted and caches created by
branches in forks will not be considered. Only cache entries for the
base branch are always available.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2023

Codecov Report

Base: 78.48% // Head: 78.48% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (2964edf) compared to base (c2cba5b).
Patch coverage: 92.28% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #7480   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    78.48%   78.48%           
========================================
  Files         1663     1663           
  Lines       191188   191188           
========================================
  Hits        150054   150054           
  Misses       41134    41134           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/ansi-c/c_typecheck_expr.cpp 76.06% <ø> (ø)
src/ansi-c/expr2c_class.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-instrument/contracts/utils.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/goto_symex.h 86.66% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/ssa_step.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/symex_assign.cpp 81.15% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/symex_target.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/symex_target_equation.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-synthesizer/cegis_verifier.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-synthesizer/expr_enumerator.cpp 74.54% <ø> (ø)
... and 66 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 5cabd3b into diffblue:develop Jan 16, 2023
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the cleanup/caching branch January 16, 2023 16:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants