Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Add test_require_gpu to ci jobs #1059

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add test_require_gpu to ci jobs #1059

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

j-rivero
Copy link
Contributor

@j-rivero j-rivero commented Jul 2, 2024

Thew PR implements the test_require_gpu parameter for the CI kind of jobs in the buildfarm.

The first commit 4e0466e adds the necessary code to support the test_require_gpu parameter in the ci build files and the docker run necessary arguments to the ci_job template when running "build and test".

The second commit d6a39c3 fixes current code existing in devel jobs used by the ci jobs.

Tested: the code was used for testing gz-rendering OpenGL tests in the testing buildfarm of the Gazebo team. https://citest.build.osrfoundation.org/view/Rci/job/Rci__nightly-release_ubuntu_noble_amd64/68/testReport/projectroot.test/integration/

P.D: there is a need to audit the existing gpu code in the devel jobs that I plan to do in a different PR.

j-rivero added 2 commits July 18, 2024 19:47
Signed-off-by: Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@osrfoundation.org>
@cottsay
Copy link
Member

cottsay commented Jul 26, 2024

It looks like this rolls back some of #624, which was merged over 4 years ago. Should we tick-tock some of the public-facing changes? In particular, the script argument changes would cause a regression if someone was already using them.

@nuclearsandwich
Copy link
Contributor

It looks like this rolls back some of #624, which was merged over 4 years ago. Should we tick-tock some of the public-facing changes? In particular, the script argument changes would cause a regression if someone was already using them.

I agree. It's profoundly unlikely that we have users on the previous setup but even if they never got it working I think emitting deprecation warnings rather than rendering configs unparseable is good practice.

@nuclearsandwich
Copy link
Contributor

Although we don't actually do releases of ros_buildfarm too frequently ATM so I'm not sure what the criteria for tocking out would be.

Signed-off-by: Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@osrfoundation.org>
@j-rivero
Copy link
Contributor Author

It looks like this rolls back some of #624, which was merged over 4 years ago. Should we tick-tock some of the public-facing changes? In particular, the script argument changes would cause a regression if someone was already using them.

I agree. It's profoundly unlikely that we have users on the previous setup but even if they never got it working I think emitting deprecation warnings rather than rendering configs unparseable is good practice.

Understood. Parameters are back in b367013 with a deprecation warning.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants