-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 202
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
fix(ci): Speed up CI, Add t.Parallel and Fix Test Parallelism Issue #2459
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2459 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 21.17% 32.37% +11.19%
===========================================
Files 3 350 +347
Lines 85 15589 +15504
Branches 20 20
===========================================
+ Hits 18 5047 +5029
- Misses 66 10179 +10113
- Partials 1 363 +362
|
test-unit-cover: test-unit-norace ## run golang unit tests with coverage | ||
@echo "Running unit tests with coverage and race checks..." |
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.
Unclear to me if there's a better way to separate tests. Its even unclear why we have to run tests with tags bls12381,test
in the first place
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.
We need to include the test
tag in go test
for it to include and test the *_test.go
files that import the statetransition package, see #2428
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.
do we need tags at all? build tags are quite undiscoverable - see. I'm also having trouble filtering tests.
The intention for test-unit-norace
was that it only run tests built with norace
- but it seems to be running all of them according to run logs.
Still faster than before though
ok github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/storage/beacondb 0.038s coverage: 26.0% of statements
ok github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/storage/beacondb/index 0.008s coverage: 0.0% of statements
ok github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/storage/block 0.005s coverage: 82.8% of statements
ok github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/storage/filedb 0.026s coverage: 77.1% of statements
Signed-off-by: Alberto Benegiamo <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alberto Benegiamo <[email protected]>
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 is in improvement wrt current state so I approve this.
We can iterate on top of this to solve the open points
…2459) Signed-off-by: Alberto Benegiamo <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alberto Benegiamo <[email protected]>
…2459) Signed-off-by: Alberto Benegiamo <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alberto Benegiamo <[email protected]>
CI got extremely slow because the
-race
flag andquick.Check
don't like eachother. This fixes it by running the quick.Check tests without-race
.CI time goes from ~9 minutes to ~4
Contains :