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

Completion gen faster #1201

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

tmccombs
Copy link
Collaborator

@tmccombs tmccombs commented Dec 2, 2022

This is an attempt to speed up CI builds, by pulling completion generation out into a separate job. I don't know if it will work though.

@tmccombs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tmccombs commented Dec 2, 2022

This might actually make it slower though, by having additional jobs.

Some other things we might be able to do:

  1. Use my first commit on this branch so that we can re-use the output from the build step to generate the completions. That was my original plan, but then I realized it wont' work if for the jobs where we cross-compile to another architecture.
  2. Set up caching so that if one job generates completions it can be re-used by other jobs. Would probably want to do 1 in addition to this.
  3. Do this PR, but also use more caching, so that building on the completion jobs does work that benefits some of the build/test jobs.

@tmccombs tmccombs force-pushed the completion-gen-faster branch 2 times, most recently from 3d4109f to 8f372b0 Compare December 2, 2022 07:55
Because for whatever reason it uses "debug" instead of the profile name.
By only generating it once for unix and once for windows and passing it
through outputs.
@sharkdp
Copy link
Owner

sharkdp commented Jan 17, 2023

Thank you for looking into this. I don't think the problem is severe enough to require urgent fixing - so we can take our time to find a good solution.

I'm not an expert in GitHub Actions, so I can't really help much here. I just usually try to avoid any kind of caching solutions in CI if possible, because that just introduces a whole new class of potential problems where the cache is not invalidated properly in certain scenarios. I'd rather keep CI simple, even if it takes a bit longer.

@tmccombs tmccombs closed this May 5, 2024
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.

None yet

2 participants