-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 379
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
ci: consider adding back the gnovm parallel testing #2826
Comments
cc @ajnavarro. Can we make the gnovm test shorter without having to split it up again? |
Most of the 17 minutes running the tests are spent on testing StdLibs:
My proposal: fix all race conditions we have in our code to be able to parallelize our tests. Stdlibs can be tested in much less than 6:30 mins. |
Sounds reasonable. Does anyone have an estimation of the feasibility and difficulty of removing all the race conditions? -> #2097 |
I did a bit of a research and adding t.Parallel() to stdlib tests we improved a bit the time needed to run them: #2864 They take 3 minutes less to run in total. |
…2864) Check #2826 for more context. --------- Signed-off-by: Antonio Navarro <[email protected]>
PR #2864 makes
The failure prints:
|
of course it's uverse. (#2067) |
With the overhaul of GitHub Actions in PR (#2040), we switched from nine parallel CI jobs for gnovm to a single job. This change has made the CI check longer, and it slows down our (my?) ability to identify the root cause of a problem when we need to sift through a large log for errors.
What do you think about setting up a parallel gnovm test as we did before?
See https://github.com/gnolang/gno/pull/2040/files#diff-c4113e9299b96c08f4bd91c5bf070f0f0feb6ae61f3f19d845a6501d419c9658L62-L71
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: