Travsi-ci / any other CI about wakaama

[rettichschnidi]

According to comment 2 in Bugzilla, it sounds like GitHub is the way to go after all. I do not think that the mentioned services exclusive to Jenkins are needed by Wakaama, and as non-committer, I would not be able to configure Jenkins anyway. Therefore, question number 2 does not seem relevant anymore.

Regarding question 1:

1. Building all executables. Deny PRs if failing.
2. Execute tests. Deny PRs if failing.
3. Measure test coverage. Deny if merging the PR would lower the coverage of the target branch.
4. Integrate static code analysis. Deny PR when new defects detected.

I just created PR #489, which does, if and when merged to master, number 1. It also runs the unit tests, but does not (yet) fail when tests fail. Depending on when PR #423 gets merged, I will either create a follow-up PR or update this one.

if this goes in the right direction, I will then move on implementing 3 (SonarCloud and/or Gcov) and 4 (SonarCloud and/or Clang Static Analyzer). Publishing to SonarCloud.io I have already done, integrating it into GitHub to run on PRs seems to be straight forward, same goes for getting setting up a SonarCloud account. However, fine-tuning the SonarCloud profile likely needs to be done by a committer of this project (or whoever can get the needed permissions over there).

[rettichschnidi]

Done! 🥳

[davidgraeff]

If the maintainers don't want a CI, this issue should be closed.

[dnav]

It is more a lack of time than a lack of will. Sorry.

[rettichschnidi]

I hacked together a simple PoC using GitHub Actions and SonarCloud:

• Repo overview
• main.yml
• Resulting report (Link will break in the future)

I have not configured SonarCloud, which would be very much needed to make it actually useful. Also, I very much like Clang Static Analyzer and coverage-reports generated by lcov. Before adding/rebasing to those tools, and creating a PR, I'd like to know the following:

• Would a GitHub runner be acceptable to Eclipse?
• Who would enable SonarCloud access to this Wakaama repository? Maintain the SonarCloud account?

[sbernard31]

Would a GitHub runner be acceptable to Eclipse?
Who would enable SonarCloud access to this Wakaama repository? Maintain the SonarCloud account?

You probably need to ask this to eclipse IT team opening a bugzilla issue : https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=Community

[sbernard31]

About eclipse CI infrastructure, I think the classic eclipse way is jenkins : https://ci.eclipse.org/
(I don't know if there is other way)

[rettichschnidi]

I just created an issue in Bugzilla: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=568471

[sbernard31]

Ok so I think we can use this bugzilla ticket to ask for a JIPP instance for Wakaama project.
But we need first a project lead to be able to give a "+1 from project lead". (Currently waiting for PMC approval ...)

Next question :

1. What do you want Jenkins do for you ? (about sonar : https://wiki.eclipse.org/SonarQube)
2. Do you want to use classic config or jenkins pipeline ?

[rettichschnidi]

Some other ideas for later on:

• Code style checks using clang-format (will need some discussion)
• Running binaries with optimizations and sanitizers (e.g. address, memory, undefined behavior) enabled (maybe helpful for issues like #444, #416)
• Build and test on non-x86 architectures.
• Building more combinations of defines

[sbernard31]

@rettichschnidi do you plan to integrate more CI or do you consider this issue is resolved ?

[sbernard31]

OK I get my answer, it seems there are more ( 👉 #567)

[rettichschnidi]

Yes, I intend to get another ~3 PRs merged:

• As you have seen, #567, code coverage measurement
• Clang build
• Some kind of static code analysis

@davidgraeff Have you moved on or is there a chance you review/give feedback regarding the current work in this area?

[davidgraeff]

My initial issue is solved. And even adapted, by not using Travis CI which was common in 2016 and suggested by me, but Github actions. The ticket can be closed, thanks :)

[rettichschnidi]

From my POV, once PR #570 is merged, the most relevant points are addressed (not perfectly, but good enough for now).