Skip to content

add to gcc11-bullseye to workflows - [MOD-9529] #680

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

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 28, 2025

Conversation

BenGoldberger
Copy link
Collaborator

test redisearch on debian-bullseye with gcc>10

@BenGoldberger BenGoldberger marked this pull request as ready for review May 25, 2025 08:28
@BenGoldberger BenGoldberger requested a review from alonre24 May 25, 2025 12:53
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 25, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.27%. Comparing base (aabfdda) to head (3d8823f).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #680      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.24%   96.27%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         112      112              
  Lines        6278     6278              
==========================================
+ Hits         6042     6044       +2     
+ Misses        236      234       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ jobs:
- focal
# - bionic
- bullseye
- bullseye-gcc11
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we should have both "regular" bullseye and gcc11 bullseye on every PR merge. If you believe we need to have both flows, than let's keep it only in nightly

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok. I wasnt sure

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You removed it from the required jobs in the merge queue, but it will still run (the workflow of Bullseye will always run both jobs) - so I believe you have it in a separate file

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

when I tried to add a file the event-nightly flow was angry for using too many files : here

So I added a boolean option and as you can see the merge-queue doesnt run the job here

@@ -8,3 +8,9 @@ jobs:
with:
container: debian:bullseye
pre-checkout-script: apt-get update && apt-get -y install git

bullseye-gcc11:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please add a comment to the PR with a link to a successful run of this new job

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@BenGoldberger
Copy link
Collaborator Author

BenGoldberger commented May 26, 2025

@BenGoldberger BenGoldberger requested a review from alonre24 May 26, 2025 12:19
alonre24
alonre24 previously approved these changes May 26, 2025
@BenGoldberger BenGoldberger requested review from alonre24 and GuyAv46 May 27, 2025 09:18
@BenGoldberger BenGoldberger added this pull request to the merge queue May 28, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 438d05a May 28, 2025
53 checks passed
@BenGoldberger BenGoldberger deleted the add-gcc11-bullseye-to-CI branch May 28, 2025 10:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants