Conversation
As of commit 647bb8d ("vscode: add more themed items (#1957)"), our aarch64-linux runner is nearly out of space:
This PR causes CI to fail because we are finally running out of space:
Here is the relevant code: stylix/.github/workflows/check.yml Lines 37 to 46 in 647bb8d |
| if: runner.os == 'Linux' | ||
| with: | ||
| hatchet-protocol: holster | ||
| hatchet-protocol: carve |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem is not the protocol not being aggressive enough. The problem is that it does nothing on aarch:
stylix/.github/workflows/check.yml
Line 44 in 647bb8d
IIRC, we excluded aarch because it was causing non-trivial problems. Seems like we have to resolve those now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I can tell runner.os doesn't specify the runner architecture, only the os. Are there docs that point to the contrary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I can tell
runner.osdoesn't specify the runner architecture, only the os. Are there docs that point to the contrary?
Commit e334b30 ("ci: check: add wimpysworld/nothing-but-nix Action for larger Nix store") simply replicates nothing-but-nix's internal guarding implementation, as mentioned in wimpysworld/nothing-but-nix#33 (comment).
@Defelo and @MattSturgeon, is Defelo/nixpkgs-review-gha#26 currently the best way for getting nothing-but-nix to work on darwin? What would an upstream PR look like? Considering we already pin a specific version, I would not mind pinning a patched mini-fork.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Defelo and MattSturgeon, is Defelo/nixpkgs-review-gha#26 currently the best way for getting nothing-but-nix to work on darwin? What would an upstream PR look like? Considering we already pin a specific version, I would not mind pinning a patched mini-fork.
Darwin CI seems to be doing fine currently, I don't see why we need to reclaim more space there. The issue with CI is the runner seems to disconnect, which is likely caused by being starved of disk space, ram or cpu resources.
|
Also, NixOS/nix@ecdda57 is now released, so we could potentially switch to using a plain |
efd8045 caused nixpkgs and dev-nixpkgs to be different.
Not resolving this issue before the release of the 25.11 stable branch, would complicate our release-25.11 branch-off process.
Could be worth a try if a proper solution is not possible.
Yes. Although, it would be better to clean this up in a follow-up PR. For reference, commit 29dc3dd ("gnome: update to GNOME 49 (#1966)") uses version 2.32.1. |
You may also want to consider Validating your biome settings against a schema is unnecessary, if you test that the formatter actually works when updating its settings. |
|
we could switch to using namespace runners or buildbot, both provided by nix-community. nixvim and home-manager both have switched to buildbot. |
This reverts commit 8bd2c01.
f894046 to
cc72ed3
Compare
|
Switching to buildbot seems like a good idea and would save us time setting up our own CI. I assume things are also cached on the build server between runs making everything a lot faster. |
Considering Stylix consumes considerably more CI time than most other Nix projects 1 2 3 (maybe second to Nixpkgs), would we overload CI usage? IIRC, Stylix already runs on custom nix-community runners. |
This is definitely something to consider. Assuming packages can be cached locally on the build machine, our main consumption would be evaluation time. We could reduce this later by simplifying the testbed machines, for example using a more lightweight desktop environment, disabling documentation packages, and so on.
AFAIK we're using standard GitHub hosted runners: stylix/.github/workflows/check.yml Lines 23 to 30 in b68e822 |
|
CI is passing again in commit 2877806 after several manual retries. Maybe CI consistently passes now that the cache has been properly populated. The CI of commit 727785e passed on the first retry. If the CI of commits 3e2c930 and 961948b both also pass on the first retry, then we can assume that CI is reliably working again. |
This seems likely, but our ci should still be functional when dealing with a large flake update. I'd still like to pursue using buildbot. |
includes numtide/treefmt-nix#430 which fixes the ci failing