[petsc-dev] broken nightlybuilds (next vs next-tmp)

Jed Brown jed at jedbrown.org
Sat Nov 11 12:53:03 CST 2017

Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>>  And that makes my point. The time for me to login to cg, set
>> everything up, and run the tests should be automated, and in fact we
>> already did that for next, which is what should be used.
> You can automate an ssh command run a test on cg - [if you don't want
> to run tests on your laptop]
> But this is a fundamental problem.
> When next model is promoted for integration testing - and Jed keeps
> justifying it with all the benefits it would have - and any one of us
> short-cirucits it by using it for 'local testing' which I think is a
> prereqisite for next model - our next model is broken and will remain
> broken.
> Another reason why Barry wants to throw away this model.

It's really just the same reason again.

My proposal is to create

1. "pretty good" testing that runs locally in <5 minutes

2. a recommended PETSC_ARCH using an open source compiler (gcc or clang)
   that finds common bugs; this is probably complex, int64, etc.

3. continuous integration that runs this "pretty good" suite above on
   weird architectures in a few minutes for all PRs and flags them on
   the web interface + notifies the author.

These are small, desirable practices in any case.  If we do this and
people are still abusing 'next', we can revisit what has gone wrong.

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list