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

Split unit test and unit race into 2 components #15734

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 18, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 commented Apr 17, 2024

Description

This PR splits the unit_test and unit_race workflows into 2 parts, one that runs the evalengine tests only, and the other that runs everything else. This has been done because the CI workflows started taking too long and necessicated splitting them up.

The default behaviour of make unit_test and make unit_race doesn't change. In order to run restricted set of tests like we do in the CI, VTEVALENGINETEST environment variable has to be set to "1" or "-1".

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Apr 17, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Apr 17, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Apr 17, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone Apr 17, 2024
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.40%. Comparing base (178e6e8) to head (601ee33).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15734      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.38%   68.40%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1556     1556              
  Lines      195361   195418      +57     
==========================================
+ Hits       133598   133666      +68     
+ Misses      61763    61752      -11     

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

Copy link
Member

@deepthi deepthi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you update the description to let people know how this affects make unit_test?

.github/workflows/unit_race.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/unit_test_non_evalengine_mysql57.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/unit_test_non_evalengine_mysql57.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/unit_test_non_evalengine_mysql80.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/unit_test_non_evalengine_mysql80.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/templates/unit_test.tpl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@deepthi deepthi added the NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work label Apr 18, 2024
@deepthi deepthi removed the NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work label Apr 18, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 merged commit 008e02a into vitessio:main Apr 18, 2024
104 checks passed
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 deleted the split-unit-test branch April 18, 2024 15:29
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2024
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants