Add ubuntu 2404 images to CI config #15422
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -19,6 +19,14 @@ parameters: | |
| type: string | ||
| # solbuildpackpusher/solidity-buildpack-deps:ubuntu2204.clang-8 | ||
| default: "solbuildpackpusher/solidity-buildpack-deps@sha256:2662376fe0e1ec2d346495a19a6d64508c1048d5a7325d8600c33c343fa64a0f" | ||
| ubuntu-2404-docker-image: | ||
| type: string | ||
| # solbuildpackpusher/solidity-buildpack-deps:ubuntu2404-1 | ||
| default: "solbuildpackpusher/solidity-buildpack-deps@sha256:5d6d27551104321a30326d6024bd4e96d9d899a97a78eb9feea364996f1d18b5" | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Just to let it documented, this image comes from: #15321 (comment) |
||
| ubuntu-2404-clang-docker-image: | ||
| type: string | ||
| # solbuildpackpusher/solidity-buildpack-deps:ubuntu2404.clang-1 | ||
| default: "solbuildpackpusher/solidity-buildpack-deps@sha256:8df0086907cc1e57068ad48841f2284a87bfbd0a95006286a19a7132d84bb861" | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. And this image comes from here: #15370 (comment) There was a problem hiding this comment. By the way, I think it's a good convention to hide the comments with older hashes we ended up not using by marking them as "outdated". |
||
| ubuntu-clang-ossfuzz-docker-image: | ||
| type: string | ||
| # solbuildpackpusher/solidity-buildpack-deps:ubuntu.clang.ossfuzz-6 | ||
|
|
@@ -602,6 +610,56 @@ defaults: | |
| MAKEFLAGS: -j 10 | ||
| CPUs: 10 | ||
|
|
||
| - base_ubuntu2404: &base_ubuntu2404 | ||
| docker: | ||
| - image: << pipeline.parameters.ubuntu-2404-docker-image >> | ||
| environment: &base_ubuntu2404_env | ||
| TERM: xterm | ||
| MAKEFLAGS: -j 3 | ||
| CPUs: 3 | ||
|
|
||
| - base_ubuntu2404_clang: &base_ubuntu2404_clang | ||
| docker: | ||
| - image: << pipeline.parameters.ubuntu-2404-clang-docker-image >> | ||
| environment: &base_ubuntu2404_clang_env | ||
| TERM: xterm | ||
| CC: clang | ||
| CXX: clang++ | ||
| MAKEFLAGS: -j 3 | ||
| CPUs: 3 | ||
|
|
||
| - base_ubuntu2404_clang_large: &base_ubuntu2404_clang_large | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404_clang | ||
| resource_class: large | ||
| environment: &base_ubuntu2404_clang_large_env | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404_clang_env | ||
| MAKEFLAGS: -j 5 | ||
| CPUs: 5 | ||
|
|
||
| - base_ubuntu2404_small: &base_ubuntu2404_small | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404 | ||
| resource_class: small | ||
| environment: &base_ubuntu2404_small_env | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404_env | ||
| MAKEFLAGS: -j 2 | ||
| CPUs: 2 | ||
|
|
||
| - base_ubuntu2404_large: &base_ubuntu2404_large | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404 | ||
| resource_class: large | ||
| environment: &base_ubuntu2404_large_env | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404_env | ||
| MAKEFLAGS: -j 5 | ||
| CPUs: 5 | ||
|
|
||
| - base_ubuntu2404_xlarge: &base_ubuntu2404_xlarge | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404 | ||
| resource_class: xlarge | ||
| environment: &base_ubuntu2404_xlarge_env | ||
| <<: *base_ubuntu2404_env | ||
| MAKEFLAGS: -j 10 | ||
| CPUs: 10 | ||
|
Comment on lines
+631
to
+661
There was a problem hiding this comment. We generally add and/remove variants other than the default one as needed. So no need to add them already if nothing's using them. Having them does not hurt, but the config is already quite long :) There was a problem hiding this comment. Oh, I guess the assumption is that we'll switch all the 2204 ones to them anyway so they'll all be in use soon? There was a problem hiding this comment. Correct - the first step is to merge this PR. Then @rodiazet will rebase his evmone bump PR and switch a few of the failing soltest jobs to use the 2404 images added here (required for the evmone bump to pass). Once his PR is merged, we can then switch the rest of the 2204 jobs to 2404, and perform any required clean-up (i.e. delete the 2204 images). |
||
|
|
||
| - base_win: &base_win | ||
| executor: | ||
| name: win/default | ||
|
|
||
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.
Why was #15321 even merged without having a matching PR updating CI that passes all checks? Because of this we're in a really weird state now where the dockerfile source does not match what we're running and also it blocks us from doing any other changes to the images that we might need in the meantime (at least without reverting them). Good thing that we apparently did not need any so far.
Unless these are going to be bumped or removed very soon, we should really revert these images (with a version bump to avoid reusing the number).
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.
This you mean? #15320
We had a ton of problems with the new evmone bump (and still do for ossfuzz) while you were off.
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.
Yes, I mean why did we decide to merge #15321 even though #15320 wasn't passing CI? I remember that there were problems and that's fine, just saying that in that case the right procedure is to hold off on merging both.