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

node-test-commit-custom-suites failing to fetch git repo #1431

Closed
MylesBorins opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

node-test-commit-custom-suites failing to fetch git repo #1431

MylesBorins opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-custom-suites/517/console

21:45:05  > git fetch --no-tags --progress git@github.com:nodejs/node.git +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* +refs/pull/22184/head:refs/remotes/origin/_jenkins_local_branch # timeout=20
21:45:07 ERROR: Error fetching remote repo 'origin'
21:45:07 hudson.plugins.git.GitException: Failed to fetch from git@github.com:nodejs/node.git
21:45:07 	at hudson.plugins.git.GitSCM.fetchFrom(GitSCM.java:889)
21:45:07 	at hudson.plugins.git.GitSCM.retrieveChanges(GitSCM.java:1146)
21:45:07 	at hudson.plugins.git.GitSCM.checkout(GitSCM.java:1177)
21:45:07 	at hudson.scm.SCM.checkout(SCM.java:504)
21:45:07 	at hudson.model.AbstractProject.checkout(AbstractProject.java:1208)
21:45:07 	at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractBuildExecution.defaultCheckout(AbstractBuild.java:574)
21:45:07 	at jenkins.scm.SCMCheckoutStrategy.checkout(SCMCheckoutStrategy.java:86)
21:45:07 	at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractBuildExecution.run(AbstractBuild.java:499)
21:45:07 	at hudson.model.Run.execute(Run.java:1798)
21:45:07 	at hudson.matrix.MatrixBuild.run(MatrixBuild.java:323)
21:45:07 	at hudson.model.ResourceController.execute(ResourceController.java:97)
21:45:07 	at hudson.model.Executor.run(Executor.java:429)
21:45:07 Caused by: hudson.plugins.git.GitException: Command "git fetch --no-tags --progress git@github.com:nodejs/node.git +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* +refs/pull/22184/head:refs/remotes/origin/_jenkins_local_branch" returned status code 1:
21:45:07 stdout: 
@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Aug 8, 2018

Could be related to #1432, I don't see an env.properties in the node-test-commit hand-off for it. @gibfahn this one is yours isn't it?

Perhaps this work would be better to shoehorn into linux-containered where we do custom variations already so this would be just a matter of adding a new block in the config there and adding a new label for all of the available "sharedlibs" containers. Having multiple ways to spawn custom builds & test runs might be creating a rod for our own backs by layering complexity. I'm happy to do that work unless you have good reason for this to be a separate configuration or want to migrate the work in linux-containered to this new style.

@maclover7
Copy link
Contributor

I was the one who added the worker tests to node-test-commit (tracking issue was #1318) -- just updated the job config to pass env.properties along.

Perhaps this work would be better to shoehorn into linux-containered where we do custom variations already

Not sure if it fits easily into the containers work or not -- the idea with node-test-commit-custom-suites is that we can run custom suites (ex: internet) or pass custom flags (--worker) to tools/test.py. I believe one of the reasons we use containers for things like --without-intl or testing different versions of OpenSSL is that the actual build environment is customized, as opposed to using a regular Ubuntu 16.04 machine

@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Aug 12, 2018

@maclover7 we have generic images and "sharedlibs" images in the pool, but even the "sharedlibs" ones are pretty vanilla because they just put the shared custom libaries in /opt/ (iirc) so they are suitable for this kind of thing. These custom test suites are actually pretty similar to the build variations we do like --without-intl and Debug, I'm not seeing a good distinction that warrants a new pool of Ubuntu 16.04 machines when we could just be expanding our Docker container pool which is more flexible and doesn't hurt our quotas on our infra providers since we just grow underlying VMs.

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