Skip to content

Fix "build systems" Gitlab pipeline#28360

Merged
alalazo merged 1 commit intospack:developfrom
alalazo:qa/build_system_pipeline
Jan 12, 2022
Merged

Fix "build systems" Gitlab pipeline#28360
alalazo merged 1 commit intospack:developfrom
alalazo:qa/build_system_pipeline

Conversation

@alalazo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@alalazo alalazo commented Jan 11, 2022

Modifications:

  • Remove tut since it requires deprecated Python 3.6

@alalazo alalazo added hotfix pipelines Issues related to spack's pipeline features labels Jan 11, 2022
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@scottwittenburg scottwittenburg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approve, thanks! I expect this to survive the "naughty list" check since it removes the spec known to be broken on develop.

@alalazo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

alalazo commented Jan 11, 2022

@scottwittenburg Yeah, let's see if there is anything else to evict from the list 😈

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@scottwittenburg Yeah, let's see if there is anything else to evict from the list 😈

You're right, since there are two pythons in the build_systems concretization report (or staging report, whatever I call it), I guess there may be something else bringing in that other python.

@alalazo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

alalazo commented Jan 11, 2022

Hmm, this is weird. I checked and I think:

  1. The only spec to be removed is tut
  2. Pipelines in this branch are still concretizing tut

🤔

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

2. Pipelines in this branch are still concretizing tut

Where are you seeing that? To me it appears this PR hasn't triggered a pipeline yet because its merge commit contains a develop that is currently being tested in a running pipeline.

Screen Shot 2022-01-11 at 10 13 12 AM

@alalazo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

alalazo commented Jan 11, 2022

@alalazo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

alalazo commented Jan 11, 2022

@scottwittenburg I got the link above by just clicking "Details"

EDIT: Ugh, it's not from this PR!

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

That ☝️ is from the develop pipeline that is currently running and blocking this PR from running a pipeline.

@alalazo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

alalazo commented Jan 11, 2022

Yeah, the misleading point is that if I click "Details" in this PR I get redirected to the pipeline I posted, which is confusing...

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I got the link above by just clicking "Details"

Yeah, maybe it's confusing that the details in that case links to the pipeline that is blocking this one, when normally details links to the running pipeline for this PR.

What do you think @zackgalbreath?

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Sorry for repeated cross-posting.

@zackgalbreath
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yeah, maybe it's confusing that the details in that case links to the pipeline that is blocking this one, when normally details links to the running pipeline for this PR.

What do you think @zackgalbreath?

That was the motivation, yes. I thought it would be helpful to have a link to the currently running develop pipeline that's blocking this PR as the status message indicates. But we can remove it if you think that's not a good idea.

@adamjstewart
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

The check still says "Pending - waiting for base develop commit pipeline to succeed" but the develop pipeline finished already.

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

We're trying to keep track of these PRs where we push a branch to gitlab but it doesn't a pipeline. I added this one to the list. Now that we had a chance to look into why this one didn't run, I'll ask spackbot to do it.

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@spackbot run pipeline

@spackbot-app
Copy link
Copy Markdown

spackbot-app bot commented Jan 11, 2022

I've started that pipeline for you!

@scottwittenburg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Looks like the build_systems stack generated fine, with only [email protected] in it, so it seems like tut was all we needed to remove.

@adamjstewart
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@alalazo is this still a draft?

@alalazo alalazo marked this pull request as ready for review January 12, 2022 08:34
@alalazo alalazo merged commit 5476e5d into spack:develop Jan 12, 2022
@alalazo alalazo deleted the qa/build_system_pipeline branch January 12, 2022 08:34
pbrady pushed a commit to pbrady/spack that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2022
adamjstewart added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2022
adamjstewart added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2022
RikkiButler20 pushed a commit to RikkiButler20/spack that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2022
EthanS94 pushed a commit to EthanS94/spack that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2022
RikkiButler20 pushed a commit to RikkiButler20/spack that referenced this pull request Mar 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

hotfix pipelines Issues related to spack's pipeline features

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants