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

Remove test run from CodeQL workflow #1007

Open
astrogeco opened this issue May 12, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Remove test run from CodeQL workflow #1007

astrogeco opened this issue May 12, 2021 · 5 comments

Comments

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

astrogeco commented May 12, 2021

Describe the bug
CodeQL workflow is running unit tests which is confusing.

To Reproduce
See https://github.com/nasa/osal/actions/runs/835716057

Expected behavior
Code QL workflow should only run enough of the build steps to run the CodeQL analysis

Alternative
Keep the tests here, rename the workflow, and run the tests and codeql as separate jobs for parallelization

Code snips

- name: Run tests
run: (cd build/native/default_cpu1/osal && make test)

System observed on:
github actions

Additional context
Ensure that new CodeQL workflow in #986 doesn't have the "run tests" step

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented May 12, 2021

If you remove it from here it needs to be added in somewhere else or as a new workflow. It was easy here since everything was built already. Could be done parallel.

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented May 12, 2021

Your reference is just the local unit tests for OSAL, the run referenced in this issue is the entire suite of cFS unit tests (with the cFS configuration).

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented May 12, 2021

Note the full run will likely fail when there are dependencies, which I think is a GOOD thing (catches when we've missed something, notifies as part of the merge process that extra care is needed). As long as the PR justifies why it fails that's fine by me.

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

ah! the output looked similar so I thought they were the same. Still think they should live in separate workflows but I do get the point of using the existing build to avoid duplicating the build step. I edited the original text and added an alternative resolution

jphickey pushed a commit to jphickey/osal that referenced this issue Aug 10, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants