Subject: [FEniCS-dev] New buildbot

From: "Johannes Ring" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:52:20 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

As some of you already might have noticed, there is now a new buildbot at
[1] with slaves running on dedicated machines. This new buildbot also
includes a buildslave for Windows XP in addition to the same
configurations as earlier and there are plans to add more slaves and
configurations. We will let the old buildbot [2] run for a few more days
until we are sure that the new buildbot works as expected.

BTW, the new buildbot also generates code coverage reports [3], however,
this is currently only implemented for DOLFIN [4]. Note that only the unit
tests are taken into account when generating the report, not the demo
programs.

[1] http://buildbot.fenics.org
[2] http://www.fenics.org:8010
[3] http://www.fenics.org/coverage
[4] http://www.fenics.org/coverage/dolfin/lcov/

Johannes

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:10:18 +0100

> until we are sure that the new buildbot works as expected.

Cool, and looking through the winxp-mingw32 logs, it appears to be using
 jhbuild to build DOLFIN and its dependencies. Is the fenics-buildbot
moduleset available somewhere on line? I would like to take a look at it.

Thanks,
Harish

---

From: "Johannes Ring" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:28:24 +0100 (CET)

> moduleset available somewhere on line? I would like to take a look at it.

Yes, the new buildbot uses jhbuild and no, the moduleset is currently not
available on line. However, the moduleset only includes the FEniCS
projects at the moment and the other dependencies are installed manually
by me. If you like, I can give you access to the private hg repository
until it is made available on line.

Johannes

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:41:40 +0100

> until it is made available on line.

It's OK, I will wait. I was more curious about how the dependencies were
handled than the FEniCS projects themselves. I've been trying every now
and then (when I get access to a windows machine with Cygwin) to get
Dorsal to build DOLFIN, and I was hoping to steal some ideas from the
moduleset.

I will work with information on your Windows page at the Wiki until the
jhbuild stuff makes its way on line.

Thanks,
Harish

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:49:40 +0000

> tests are taken into account when generating the report, not the demo

The coverage test is very nice!

Looks like the new buildbot/slaves need to have MTL4 updated.

Garth

> _______________________________________________
> FEniCS-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics-dev

---

From: "Johannes Ring" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:59:17 +0100 (CET)

> Looks like the new buildbot/slaves need to have MTL4 updated.

Yes, that is true. Updated to revision 6680 on all slaves now.

Johannes

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:39:23 +0100

> The coverage test is very nice!

Can you make a page/link somewhere to the coverage tests?

I don't know where to put it, but maybe the page

  http://www.fenics.org/wiki/Buildbot

could link to both the buildbot and the coverage tests?

-- 
Anders

---

From: "Johannes Ring" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:39:41 +0100 (CET)

> could link to both the buildbot and the coverage tests?

Ok, the wiki page is updated. There will also be direct links from the
buildbot when the builds are successful.

BTW, the selftest feature is not implemented in the new buildbot. I could
try to add a similar feature, however, if it is rarely used I'm not sure
if it is worth it. Is anybody using it?

Johannes

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:41:58 +0100

> buildbot when the builds are successful.

Nice.

> if it is worth it. Is anybody using it?

I haven't.

-- 
Anders

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:48:57 +0100

On Monday 23 February 2009 10:49:40 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > this is currently only implemented for DOLFIN [4]. Note that only the
> > unit tests are taken into account when generating the report, not the
> > demo programs.
>

Agree!

The coverage is, I would say, embarrassing low. 

The nice thing is that the coverage statistics also kicks in for unit tests 
written in python. These are quite straight forward to write so there should 
not be any big excuse for not writing unit tests. ;)

Johan