Skip to content
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

Add freebsd runner #1437

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add freebsd runner #1437

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

bynect
Copy link
Member

@bynect bynect commented Jan 23, 2025

No description provided.

@bynect bynect force-pushed the freebsd-ci branch 2 times, most recently from 859fb68 to d312c85 Compare January 23, 2025 23:40
@bynect
Copy link
Member Author

bynect commented Jan 23, 2025

since the freebsd is in a vm it takes a very long time to run. I am thinking of making it a manual trigger

rule_field_matches_string failed because it relied on UB as discussed in dunst-project#1171
@bynect bynect force-pushed the freebsd-ci branch 3 times, most recently from 14d4907 to eb01b3f Compare January 24, 2025 02:17
@bynect
Copy link
Member Author

bynect commented Jan 24, 2025

the freebsd runner takes 2.30 minutes on average, compared to the 30 seconds for linux distros...
maybe it's not too much after all

anyway, I adapted the code to work with Freebsd using coreutils. we may want to remove gnu specific stuff and stick to posix for more compatibility but for now this is what I could do

@bynect
Copy link
Member Author

bynect commented Jan 24, 2025

@fwsmit @zappolowski what do you think about this? I think it is a nice addition to check support for bsd. my only concern is the github ci compute times but maybe 2.30 minutes is not too much.

ps: I have no clue why the arch ci is failing but it seems unrelated

@Narrat
Copy link

Narrat commented Jan 25, 2025

ps: I have no clue why the arch ci is failing but it seems unrelated

Not that knowledgeable on that topic, but the glibc had an update that day. If the base archlinux docker was still containing the old glibc and the debug symbols pulled from debuginfod were the new ones... that sounds like something valgrind could trip over (valgrind not working was the reason for failing).
Should resolve if the docker image contains the new glibc package or the workflow should add commands (pacman -Syu --noconfirm) that should run on the arch distro.

Edit: reference for how it could be done: https://github.com/labwc/labwc/blob/master/.github/workflows/build.yml#L68

@bynect
Copy link
Member Author

bynect commented Jan 25, 2025

ps: I have no clue why the arch ci is failing but it seems unrelated

Not that knowledgeable on that topic, but the glibc had an update that day. If the base archlinux docker was still containing the old glibc and the debug symbols pulled from debuginfod were the new ones... that sounds like something valgrind could trip over (valgrind not working was the reason for failing). Should resolve if the docker image contains the new glibc package or the workflow should add commands (pacman -Syu --noconfirm) that should run on the arch distro.

Edit: reference for how it could be done: https://github.com/labwc/labwc/blob/master/.github/workflows/build.yml#L68

thanks for the tip! I updated our images and now it works again 👍🏻

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 65.31%. Comparing base (1827713) to head (3b5e925).

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1437      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.32%   65.31%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          50       50              
  Lines        8763     8762       -1     
  Branches     1034     1034              
==========================================
- Hits         5724     5723       -1     
  Misses       3039     3039              
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 65.31% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

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