Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] test: fix OSX host setup

["Alexander Tikhonov" <avtikhon@tarantool.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5674 bytes --]



Alexander, I’ve tried your suggestion on brew update and created the issue on testing suites list, check the following.
  
>Среда, 25 марта 2020, 15:30 +03:00 от Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>:
> 
>> >> + brew update || echo | /usr/bin/ruby -e \
>> >> + "$(curl -fsSL  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Homebrew/install/master/install )"
>> >
>> >Why don't update formulae after installing brew?
>>
>> The tapped formula does not exist in brew any more, though it can’t be
>> updated.
>
>After installing brew you'll have fresh brew, but no formulae, I guess.
>Will the next `brew install` work? I guess, no. You need `brew update`
>after this.
I’ve tried to remove the brew and reinstalled it with this command, seems that all needed updates were tried to do during the installation:
==> Tapping homebrew/core
Cloning into '/usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Taps/homebrew/homebrew-core'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 699135, done.
remote: Total 699135 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 699135
Receiving objects: 100% (699135/699135), 283.20 MiB | 8.49 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (459609/459609), done.
Tapped 2 commands and 4942 formulae (5,205 files, 310.5MB).
Already up-to-date.

Also the next command with installation passed without any issues and installed all the needed packages.
>
>So it seems logical to do `[ -z "$(which brew) "] && ruby
>brew_install_script; brew update` rather than `brew update || ruby
>brew_install_script`.
>
>> >From the previous review [1]:
>> >
>> >> > > So you added brew installation when it is not installed. Add this to the
>> >> > > commit message at least.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it possible at all for a machine that is enabled into CI? Aren't you
>> >> > use brew to install gitlab runner?
>> >> >
>> >> > I’ve added the commit message about it. This change is really needed to be sure that
>> >> > our customers can use this script too.
>> >
>> >Are there any customer who run our testing? I don't know anyone. Even if
>> >one doing it, (s)he prepares an environment and invoke `make test` or
>> >`cd test && ./test-run.py`.
>> >
>> >So it is the dead code. Personally I prefer to don't have dead code. If
>> >you decided to do it, okay.
>> >
>> >[1]:  https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/2020-March/015062.html
>>
>> Actually, I’ve meant that people who run on Mac hosts, like people
>> in our group.
>
>Developers doing `make test` or `cd test && ./test-run.py`. Nobody want
>to run a testing script and found that something was changed in its
>system. So I'm still on my view.
>
>> >> + # try to install the packages either upgrade it to avoid of fails
>> >> + # if the package already exists with the previous version
>> >> + brew install --force ${OSX_PKGS} || brew upgrade ${OSX_PKGS}
>> >> + pip install --force-reinstall -r test-run/requirements.txt
>> >
>> >--user (pip option) is not needed anymore? It was added to avoid using
>> >of sudo or virtualenv. Is it related to a Travis CI infrastructure
>> >change?
>>
>> Right, but in real it was added because of gitlab-ci, for now we have
>> well configured OSX like travis’s.
>
>'It' -- the option? Okay so. Good piece of information to add to the
>commit message.
Ok, added.
>
>> >It looks a bit strance that pip w/o --user just works from 'travis'
>> >user.
>> You may check that testing passed with installation part without issues (check from line 8908):
>>  https://www.travis-ci.org/github/tarantool/tarantool/jobs/666683564
>
>Okay. Yep, it seems pip assumes --user by default in Travis CI. Maybe I
>wrongly remember that --user was added for Travis CI (AFAIR it was done
>by Arseniy).
>
>> >> + cd test && ./test-run.py --vardir /tmp/tnt --force $(TEST_RUN_EXTRA_PARAMS) \
>> >> app/ app-tap/ box/ box-py/ box-tap/ engine/ engine_long/ long_run-py/ luajit-tap/ \
>> >> replication-py/ small/ sql/ sql-tap/ swim/ unit/ vinyl/ wal_off/ xlog/ xlog-py/
>> >
>> >Why not to use --exclude or TEST_RUN_EXCLUDE?
>> >
>> >Are there any issue about disabled tests?
>> >
>> >Why the whole suite is going to be disabled? To save time to investigate
>> >problems?
>> >
>> >When we'll investigate and enable tests rather then only disable them?
>> >The past year trend to don't enable anything back…
>>
>> This commit is already complete of changes and the change on the
>> testing suites better to make in the next patch, due to the list of
>> suites were not changed.
>
>Let's add the info about Mac OS X testing into the relevant issue to
>track disabled tests (AFAIR you have one, but it was about testing
>during RPM packages build).
Ok, sure:
https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4818
>
>> >From the previous review [1]:
>> >
>> >> > The problem with 'var' directory is not related to the new way to Python
>> >> > 2 installation? Why everything is in one commit?
>> >>
>> >> This commit is about OSX host setup for building and testing, so I
>> >> think it is ok to set it here.
>> >
>> >It sounds as 'because something going not right, when something was
>> >changed'. Neat reason.
>> >
>> >I cannot say neither 'ok', not 'not ok' for this. Okay, I can guess that
>> >working directory is changed somehow, but why and where?
>>
>> ‘var’ directory lays too deep at the path and the length of the path
>> is too long for test-run.py tool which fails because of it, the
>> solution to fix it is to use the short link for the ‘var’ directory.
>
>Why it was okay, but becomes too long?
Because the name of the user on the new mac mini and its home path is really long
echo ~ | wc -c
      28
also the path of tarantool/test/var adds.
 
--
Alexander Tikhonov
 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7921 bytes --]