Skip to content

Add Cirrus CI; add --force_fail and --fail_fast options to example.c#2

Closed
dankegel wants to merge 0 commit intoProgramMax:developfrom
dankegel:develop
Closed

Add Cirrus CI; add --force_fail and --fail_fast options to example.c#2
dankegel wants to merge 0 commit intoProgramMax:developfrom
dankegel:develop

Conversation

@dankegel
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@dankegel dankegel commented May 20, 2020

Changes to test/example.c:

  • Passing --force_fail injects a test failure (for use when debugging how CI handles junit)
  • Passing --fail_fast causes first failure to abort (now that Chris's change makes continuing easy)
  • Passing --junit foo.xml no longer disables normal output (otherwise it felt like flying blind)
  • --junit's output is now compatible with cirrus-ci's junit parser
  • Options can now be set via the environment, e.g. setting ZLIBTEST_FORCE_FAIL=1 is equivalent to passing --force_fail

Other changes:

  • appveyor now runs tests via ctest
  • Added .cirrus.yml to enable cirrus-ci builds
  • README now shows status badges for both Appveyor and Cirrus; see https://github.com/dankegel/zlib/tree/develop for what it looks like when the git repo has those two services enabled

@dankegel
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Chris, feel like configuring cirrus support on your branch to see it in action?

@dankegel dankegel force-pushed the develop branch 2 times, most recently from d1464cc to 2d1f3a8 Compare May 20, 2020 18:30
@dankegel dankegel mentioned this pull request May 24, 2020
@ProgramMax
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

I know I suggested sending the pull requests to my branch, but I think I should now suggest the opposite.

What I meant was individual small changes that we wanted to see in that initial upstream pull request. But I feel like these things should be a separate pull request upstream, since they add separate functionality.

What do you think? I think it is better to show these to the greater community. Here, I think it won't get the visibility and I shouldn't be the gatekeeper. (Again, when I suggested here, I meant for changes going into that initial pull request. Since the discussion was happening upstream, there was visibility and I just wanted to make sure your suggestions were properly credited to you in the pull request.)

@dankegel
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

dankegel commented May 26, 2020 via email

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.

2 participants