On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:37:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:13:23AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> Our GitLab CI setup has a test gap where the fuzzers aren't exercised at > >> all. Add a smoke test, similar to the one we have in GitHub Workflows. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> As identified by Junio in <xmqqwmoi31aw.fsf@gitster.g>. > >> > >> Patrick > > > > I forgot to add the link to a successful run of this job: > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/git/-/jobs/6735705569 > > Thanks. I wonder if we can somehow automate a change like this. > > Seeing how simple this fix has become thanks to the use of > before_script/script pair that merely point at ci/*.sh scripts, > perhaps we have already extracted enough commonalities as a set of > shell scripts in ci/ hierarchy. I wonder if we can have a common > "source" that is "compiled" into .gitlab-ci.yml and its counterpart > for GitHub Actions? > > Or perhaps a linter that can say things like "ah, you are adding > this new test to one, but not touching the other, shouldn't you?", > and "you are tweaking this existing test in one, but shouldn't you > be doing the same to the other?" We probably could, yeah. The question is whether it would really be worth it in the end. GitLab CI is still a relatively new addition, and thus it needs to catch up with what GitHub Workflows has. But once that is done I don't expect there to be a ton of changes to the CI setup, and the few new additions that we gain once in a while should be relatively easy to spot during review. So if anybody is up for it then I'm happy to review that. But I don't think there would be enough value to do it myself. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
