build: add quic to github action

[gengjiawen]

Fix #33967

Now blocked by https://github.com//issues/34435.

[gengjiawen]

Mac failure should resolved by #34335

[richardlau]

I do not oppose testing quic with GitHub actions as long as @nodejs/quic will put in the effort to keep it green. As this PR currently stands though it is removing the testing of the default configuration.

[gengjiawen]

As this PR currently stands though it is removing the testing of the default configuration

Need to add extra flag to make run-ci -j8 V=1 TEST_CI_ARGS="-p dots" ?

[richardlau]

As this PR currently stands though it is removing the testing of the default configuration

Need to add extra flag to make run-ci -j8 V=1 TEST_CI_ARGS="-p dots" ?

My point is this PR changes the existing build/test workflows to add the configuration flag for quic which means we no longer build/test the non-quic (i.e. default) build configuration with actions.

[jasnell]

We definitely should add a configuration to test QUIC but I'm thinking that, for now, it should be a separate action without modifying any of the existing actions.

@richardlau ... every QUIC PR should be green at this point tho issues do sneak in given the heavy development.

[gengjiawen]

My point is this PR changes the existing build/test workflows to add the configuration flag for quic which means we no longer build/test the non-quic (i.e. default) build configuration with actions.

As far as I know, this is a superset of current build and test. And jenkins still run the old good without quic version. Any other potential problem I am not aware of ?

[richardlau]

We don't require Jenkins CI runs for doc only changes. The GitHub actions are supposed to be the equivalent of the old ci-lite jobs, one of which was a build and test (in addition to the linters). This is because changes to docs may affect test cases, for example some addons tests are based on the code examples in the markdown files and I'd like to keep that with the default configuration.

[gengjiawen]

I'd like to keep that with the default configuration.

I have not touch the test configuration. Adding experimental-quic has some impact on test case ?

[richardlau]

I'd like to keep that with the default configuration.

I have not touch the test configuration. Adding experimental-quic has some impact on test case ?

Yes, the binary being tested is built with non-default configuration options.

[gengjiawen]

Yes, the binary being tested is built with non-default configuration options.

But tbh it only add extra quic function, not removing anything or bypass test case.

If you insist on this, I can add an extra action to do this, but we will have three more github action.

Second thought ?

[richardlau]

My position is that I want to keep at least one build/test action job without quic enabled since we do not require a Jenkins CI for doc-only changes. I would be okay if that was the one that is part of the "Build from tarball" workflow but it looks like that might get removed (#34440 and #34123).

I would also prefer if the name of the job name of the jobs that were quic enabled included that information (e.g. something like "test-linux / test-linux-with-quic") to indicate it's a non-default build.

Objection addressed.

[gengjiawen]

My position is that I want to keep at least one build/test action job without quic enabled since we do not require a Jenkins CI for doc-only changes. I would be okay if that was the one that is part of the "Build from tarball" workflow but it looks like that might get removed (#34440 and #34123).

I would also prefer if the name of the job name of the jobs that were quic enabled included that information (e.g. something like "test-linux / test-linux-with-quic") to indicate it's a non-default build.

Renamed pipeline and add an extra good old pipeline without quic :)

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/32513/

[gengjiawen]

Landed in 1f94b89...7a5fbaf