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

Installing cargo-udeps takes very long in the CI #2889

Closed
tertsdiepraam opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 6 comments
Closed

Installing cargo-udeps takes very long in the CI #2889

tertsdiepraam opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@tertsdiepraam
Copy link
Member

The CI builds cargo-udeps from source every time for all 3 platforms for which we test it. This can take up to 20 minutes (see for example https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/runs/4843132122?check_suite_focus=true). The output of the CI says:

Tool cache is disabled in the Action inputs, skipping it
Falling back to the `cargo install` command

Maybe we could enable that tool cache to speed this up a bit?

@tertsdiepraam
Copy link
Member Author

tertsdiepraam commented Jan 17, 2022

To be fair, in other PR's it seems to take 7-11 minutes. But I feel like that's still quite long, especially because it blocks all the build steps.

@sylvestre
Copy link
Contributor

hmm, it should not block the builds?!
are you sure?

@tertsdiepraam
Copy link
Member Author

Oh I guess that's just an artifact of multiple PRs fighting for CI time at the moment then.

@sylvestre
Copy link
Contributor

maybe we can change the priority in GH action?!

@rivy
Copy link
Member

rivy commented Jan 18, 2022

I disabled the tool cache use (back in aba1c8f) because of errors and a languishing issue to repair them.

It looks like fixing the problem is still not on the near-term agenda.

In the meanwhile, I probably could create a repository with compiled tools to act as a cache, downloading a prefab version of cargo-udeps from that repo. It would likely shave 5 mins (maybe a bit more) off of all the Style/deps CI steps.

@tertsdiepraam
Copy link
Member Author

tertsdiepraam commented Jan 18, 2022

Hmm, that seems a bit too complicated for what it would gain us. If there isn't really a simple solution I'll just close this issue. Thanks for the reply!

@rivy rivy self-assigned this Feb 4, 2022
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants