From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9239B205E0D for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 04:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714451463; cv=none; b=cTqqYw9yISCdJcoctryKQbdMvau9eJjuf/leAgXI7JnqbR33T6ZCSwVP+0dx1KoCmpp+K6FXK4jXg7lgq64UPv7qzmA7sqw32U0fR577KrDPSZjtXMKewzzMfCy65IMCJYRW9INV914z2AM8CYHEyYqMlGjB3iI++jf+QajtGWs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714451463; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rz2ldf2cn02Q8kwLZ/KBJVuLQjkdrmDyimELYFQ7m0M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=c6Z8g0mYdcIMvB2F12eE2aXXp0B28K1yhKDUIzbPziyj9SSToXth6g5liaFXZMQ2argqyoQRgnNPW21myrlOYQGJ2pAVAtyDiYVdNPG8ChZwaG21dRgahm56n11Zslkq5Y4EL3ap/wHGbHZan/HdiDrAGxAof9197y5B5bVkjXU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=S1bpWmJf; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=HuCaH3Dd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="S1bpWmJf"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="HuCaH3Dd" Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81355138040F; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:30:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1714451459; x=1714537859; bh=vWErRmtrks H+a7D2iDUDrF2XcDIhihhi1HXmK7gAWSk=; b=S1bpWmJfdFNL6Wlhp2gOgA/Ros VjWxrW1Vj4sfrnCKHr8IcgJbPcvasUGvh93rul8g3tlSeQo5lg50m4wDKSDGy24c 3DAMluRDGPmRM+AYG9zLXDg4wym/jG8Z7QKm7WoWWErweUWM7I+cYmOk3Sr1hiHV tYQo04yZ27f0PdGcarGThUs3NxvFbk8Un727qIFhjDqJCAFe77+D2Vq/5P1r8De1 iy0TrZ4qZhx8pTON1az8KmQTJtUfxgYKq1Qg7GlKzmG6r8kEfesT61pH/UksdFpW sJvew/BXn6IPhyycBfRZ4L1Zcii1LRKXh62Mae/1Ps/dru5IuFnhoCvAqF9A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1714451459; x=1714537859; bh=vWErRmtrksH+a7D2iDUDrF2XcDIh ihhi1HXmK7gAWSk=; b=HuCaH3DdAuOJkNUz1p8o0D2n8p5ps6HXO2CwjJJVorUz bx6NVsErY+ZOIWVMpPBDq0x0U7R2XAZPAwNkQ1O8NYZrEdsNrp2CA14/bB1cF/N4 HBPJ9k5SA99VA52RH8pZYzl/6ADn+8vmOTYPOxUM5CtxQ+I/qIhWjO2wjOMPSZtp F7OLFWlzjloJRTUoHxWplUa2siAbGWfrKIpZVR7WHbVc5BXBkyCz295Za4fmWJbq E3J1a/QL6J86BcmNZYCUsuHrF4DDXicjFDgIh9PNR661vAwFzY5Z4B1GVXw/x9d+ VIA8ki0j9hN+6qNZVXjTLrISsldnVQlLjm5+FnAbpQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvdduvddgkedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtd erredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghkucfuthgvihhnhhgrrhguthcuoehpshes phhkshdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeelgfeitdffkedvteffgeduuedvffdtff ehteefleffvedvffehvdffgeelgeegieenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhlrggsrdgtohhm necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhsse hpkhhsrdhimh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 0ac97cf4 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 30 Apr 2024 04:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:30:53 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gitlab-ci: add smoke test for fuzzers Message-ID: References: <01fb94999f8e2014ba4d09ce7451a4f5d315ee72.1714371146.git.ps@pks.im> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AUTTm6wvtr2G4CbE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --AUTTm6wvtr2G4CbE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:37:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: >=20 > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:13:23AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> Our GitLab CI setup has a test gap where the fuzzers aren't exercised = at > >> all. Add a smoke test, similar to the one we have in GitHub Workflows. > >>=20 > >> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt > >> --- > >>=20 > >> As identified by Junio in . > >>=20 > >> Patrick > > > > I forgot to add the link to a successful run of this job: > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/git/-/jobs/6735705569 >=20 > Thanks. I wonder if we can somehow automate a change like this. >=20 > Seeing how simple this fix has become thanks to the use of > before_script/script pair that merely point at ci/*.sh scripts, > perhaps we have already extracted enough commonalities as a set of > shell scripts in ci/ hierarchy. I wonder if we can have a common > "source" that is "compiled" into .gitlab-ci.yml and its counterpart > for GitHub Actions? >=20 > Or perhaps a linter that can say things like "ah, you are adding > this new test to one, but not touching the other, shouldn't you?", > and "you are tweaking this existing test in one, but shouldn't you > be doing the same to the other?" We probably could, yeah. The question is whether it would really be worth it in the end. GitLab CI is still a relatively new addition, and thus it needs to catch up with what GitHub Workflows has. But once that is done I don't expect there to be a ton of changes to the CI setup, and the few new additions that we gain once in a while should be relatively easy to spot during review. So if anybody is up for it then I'm happy to review that. But I don't think there would be enough value to do it myself. Patrick --AUTTm6wvtr2G4CbE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF9hrgiFbCdvenl/rVbJhu7ckPpQFAmYwc/gACgkQVbJhu7ck PpTcQQ//fNBWj6Vdtk7UBpTChZB13KqgLOJtZIW0IUL3kH8dXEi/m92Fhf7bhap2 j9yAYBCum8m90SXuxqS/BBIq9MIVT50AllHNyuY64xFsDbmAbbIGBBg7AMg/+bQM uQURdu0PP8HUnLZlRAhaH6qjLSfMp5bloRc3jh+zSflvGdo9Wof4JvRYQbXiGwQa m/IpE2Eq1yHmpJEN4bFQ9M5KmZj6tV64cyehBLKOT0EiASbA+uhD/4m+O0T/cksQ cRhYD0MNqlN6dX8DDomuJjXjhpXQUCY3gYed3009Wmm2wnpCMgjTWnbXe5Ew64yF pdXR68uwdVUZLYIJW6bkA18XjkHQ8GI1Q3qHw7CJis6HBWSFqtC2m7xPJ/VMftWe nUK1S5ldeAF+zicUkA5bKqyPs8JDecHWleAzaXfQIZpyK2sr7KNrEEwxdfMtSRwO i/p2ZuTA7VpQUcFrMKPH18bTI+f28iFGAPGOSN/bw9LiW/vtycr5pTmIel9JSzZk EdpZLM40G1ayBwIpR4f2Fkf8ETk5QC+NRm2+5rqrw2EHECjZ8N4tmk9vp9oOlO5U zfmmIIWMpa4WqOz4g+A25Eaiu5zRUL0nO05CH7mNiR7zNrlggJSRmcX6WgGSvYqi HT67TD7S9D+VgKA1D2NISvGGRKzmgvyYRcxac9V45tcrufbDlPQ= =Eo0L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AUTTm6wvtr2G4CbE--