There was a missing rest field access. In addition createTag doesn't actually create a tag, it creates a tag object. A tag object is an object which references a commit or other kind of object and has various kinds of metadata. You need to store it in a reference stored in refs/tags/ to actually show as tag in the git ui. The code to update the tag however creates a lightweight tag (which is a file in refs/tags/ which directly references a commit rather than a tag object) as such do the same when creating the initial dev tag by using createRef with a commit id as object sha.
See also https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Git-References for the difference between a lightweight tag and an annotated tag.
GitHub recently made its merge queue feature available for use in public
repositories owned by organizations meaning that the Wasmtime repository
is a candidate for using this. GitHub's Merge Queue feature is a system
that's similar to Rust's bors integration where PRs are tested before
merging and only passing PRs are merged. This implements the "not rocket
science" rule where the `main` branch of Wasmtime, for example, is
always tested and passes CI. This is in contrast to our current
implementation of CI where PRs are merged when they pass their own CI,
but the code that was tested is not guaranteed to be the state of `main`
when the PR is merged, meaning that we're at risk now of a failing
`main` branch despite all merged PRs being green. While this has
happened with Wasmtime this is not a common occurrence, however.
The main motivation, instead, to use GitHub's Merge Queue feature is
that it will enable Wasmtime to greatly reduce the amount of CI running
on PRs themselves. Currently the full test suite runs on every push to
every PR, meaning that our workers on GitHub Actions are frequently
clogged throughout weekdays and PRs can take quite some time to come
back with a successful run. Through the use of a Merge Queue, however,
we're able to configure only a small handful of checks to run on PRs
while deferring the main body of checks to happening on the
merge-via-the-queue itself. This is hoped to free up capacity on CI and
overall improve CI times for Wasmtime and Cranelift developers.
The implementation of all of this required quite a lot of plumbing and
retooling of our CI. I've been testing this in an [external
repository][testrepo] and I think everything is working now. A list of
changes made in this PR are:
* The `build.yml` workflow is merged back into the `main.yml` workflow
as the original reason to split it out is not longer applicable (it'll
run on all merges). This was also done to fit in the dependency graph
of jobs of one workflow.
* Publication of the `gh-pages` branch, the `dev` tag artifacts, and
release artifacts have been moved to a separate
`publish-artifacts.yml` workflow. This workflow runs on all pushes to
`main` and all tags. This workflow no longer actually preforms any
builds, however, and relies on a merge queue or similar being used for
branches/tags where artifacts are downloaded from the workflow run to
be uploaded. For pushes to `main` this works because a merge queue is
run meaning that by the time the push happens all artifacts are ready.
For release branches this is handled by..
* The `push-tag.yml` workflow is subsumed by the `main.yml` workflow. CI
for a tag being pushed will upload artifacts to a release in GitHub,
meaning that all builds must finish first for the commit. The
`main.yml` workflow at the end now scans commits for the preexisting
magical marker and pushes a tag if necessary.
* CI is currently a flat list of "run all these jobs" and this is now
rearchitected to a "fan out" approach where some jobs run to determine
the next jobs to run which then get "joined" into a finish step. The
purpose for this is somewhat nuanced and this has implications for CI
runtime as well. The Merge Queue feature requires branches to be
protected with "these checks must pass" and then the same checks are
gates both to enter the merge queue as well as pass the merge queue.
The saving grace, however, is that a "skipped" check counts as
passing, meaning checks can be skipped on PRs but run to completion on
the merge queue. A problem with this though is the build matrix used
for tests where PRs want to only run one element of the build matrix
ideally but there's no means on GitHub Actions right now for the
skipped entries to show up as skipped easily (or not that I know of).
This means that the "join" step serves the purpose of being the single
gate for both PR and merge queue CI and there's just more inputs to it
for merge queue CI. The major consequence of this decision is that
GitHub's actions scheduling doesn't work out well here. Jobs are
scheduled in a FIFO order meaning that the job for "ok complete the CI
run" is queued up after everything else has completed, possibly
after lots of other CI requests in the middle for other PRs. The hope
here is that by using a merge queue we can keep CI relatively under
control and this won't affect merge times too much.
* All jobs in the `main.yml` workflow will not automatically cancel the
entire run if they fail. Previously this fail-fast behavior was only
part of the matrix runs (and just for that matrix), but this is
required to make the merge queue expedient. The gate of the merge
queue is the final "join" step which is only executed once all
dependencies have finished. This means, for example, that if rustfmt
fails quickly then the tests which take longer might run for quite
awhile before the join step reports failure, meaning that the PR sits
in the queue for longer than needed being tested when we know it's
already going to fail. By having all jobs cancel the run this means
that failures immediately bail out and mark the whole job as
cancelled.
* A new "determine" CI job was added to determine what CI actually needs
to run. This is a "choke point" which is scheduled at the start of CI
that quickly figures out what else needs to be run. This notably
indicates whether large swaths of ci (the `run-full` flag) like the
build matrix are executed. Additionally this dynamically calculates a
matrix of tests to run based on a new `./ci/build-test-matrix.js`
script. Various inputs are considered for this such as:
1. All pushes, meaning merge queue branches or release-branch merges,
will run full CI.
2. PRs to release branches will run full CI.
3. PRs to `main`, the most common, determine what to run based on
what's modified and what's in the commit message.
Some examples for (3) above are if modifications are made to
`cranelift/codegen/src/isa/*` then that corresponding builder is
executed on CI. If the `crates/c-api` directory is modified then the
CMake-based tests are run on PRs but are otherwise skipped.
Annotations in commit messages such as `prtest:*` can be used to
explicitly request testing.
Before this PR merges to `main` would perform two full runs of CI: one
on the PR itself and one on the merge to `main`. Note that the one as a
merge to `main` was quite frequently cancelled due to a merge happening
later. Additionally before this PR there was always the risk of a bad
merge where what was merged ended up creating a `main` that failed CI to
to a non-code-related merge conflict.
After this PR merges to `main` will perform one full run of CI, the one
as part of the merge queue. PRs themselves will perform one test job
most of the time otherwise. The `main` branch is additionally always
guaranteed to pass tests via the merge queue feature.
For release branches, before this PR merges would perform two full
builds - one for the PR and one for the merge. A third build was then
required for the release tag itself. This is now cut down to two full
builds, one for the PR and one for the merge. The reason for this is
that the merge queue feature currently can't be used for our
wildcard-based `release-*` branch protections. It is now possible,
however, to turn on required CI checks for the `release-*` branch PRs so
we can at least have a "hit the button and forget" strategy for merging
PRs now.
Note that this change to CI is not without its risks. The Merge Queue
feature is still in beta and is quite new for GitHub. One bug that
Trevor and I uncovered is that if a PR is being tested in the merge
queue and a contributor pushes to their PR then the PR isn't removed
from the merge queue but is instead merged when CI is successful, losing
the changes that the contributor pushed (what's merged is what was
tested). We suspect that GitHub will fix this, however.
Additionally though there's the risk that this may increase merge time
for PRs to Wasmtime in practice. The Merge Queue feature has the ability
to "batch" PRs together for a merge but this is only done if concurrent
builds are allowed. This means that if 5 PRs are batched together then 5
separate merges would be created for the stack of 5 PRs. If the CI for
all 5 merged together passes then everything is merged, otherwise a PR
is kicked out. We can't easily do this, however, since a major purpose
for the merge queue for us would be to cut down on usage of CI builders
meaning the max concurrency would be set to 1 meaning that only one PR
at a time will be merged. This means PRs may sit in the queue for awhile
since previously many `main`-based builds are cancelled due to
subsequent merges of other PRs, but now they must all run to 100%
completion.
[testrepo]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime-merge-queue-testing
Looks like #5091 wasn't enough and some of the APIs needed updating with
changes made in the meantime. I've updated the action here and
additionally made a separate change where the release isn't continually
created and deleted but instead left alone and only the tag is updated.
This should work for the `dev` release and avoids deleting/recreating on
each PR, sending out notifications for new releases.
A local github action we have has been broken for about a month now
meaning that the `dev` tag isn't getting updated or getting new
releases. This appears to be due to the publication of new versions of
these dependencies which are running into issues using one another. I
think I've figured out versions that work and have added a
`package-lock.json` to ensure we keep using the same versions.
* Upgrade our github actions to "node16"
Each github actions run has a lot of warnings about using node12 so this
upgrades our repository to using node16. I'm hoping no other changes are
needed and I suspect other actions we're using are on node12 and will
need further updates, but this should help pin down what's remaining.
* Update `actions/checkout` workflow to `v3`
* Update to `actions/cache@v3`
* Update to `actions/upload-artifact@v3`
* Drop usage of `actions-rs/toolchain`
* Update to `actions/setup-python@v4`
* Update mdbook version
This commit removes the publish step in GitHub actions, insteading
folding all functionality into the release build steps. This avoids
having a separately scheduled job after all the release build jobs which
ends up getting delayed for quite a long time given the current
scheduling algorithm.
This involves refactoring the tarball assembly scripts and refactoring the
github asset upload script too. Tarball assembly now manages everything
internally and does platform-specific bits where necessary. The upload
script is restructured to be run in parallel (in theory) and hopefully
catches various errors and tries to not stomp over everyone else's work.
The main trickiness here is handling `dev`, which is less critical for
correctness than than tags themselves.
As a small tweak build-wise the QEMU build for cross-compiled builders
is now cached unlike before where it was unconditionally built, shaving
a minute or two off build time.
This will delete a same-name of a previous release for all tags, not
just the dev tag. That way if we need to retry a tagged release we'll
delete it and recreate it as usual.
Closes#978
This commit migrates wasmtime's CI infrastructure from Azure Pipelines
to Github Actions. Using Github Actions has a few benefits over other
offerings:
* Being natively integrated with Github means that there's no degree of
user account configuration or access control management, it's all
inherent via already existing Github permissions.
* Github Actions gives 20 parallel builders instead of Azure's 10 by
default, which is a nice boost to have!
Overall I've found Github Actions to feel a bit cleaner than Azure
Pipelines as well. Subjectively I've found the configuration to be more
readable and more pleasant to work with, although they're both just as
"powerful" I think. Additionally Github Actions has been pretty solid in
my own personal testing for a number of other projects.
The main trickiness with wasmtime's CI is the rolling `dev` release of
the master branch as well as binary releases for tags. Github Actions
doesn't have quite as much built in functionality as Azure Pipelines,
but Github Actions does have a nice feature where you can define the
code for an action locally rather than only using built-in actions.
This migration adds three local actions with some associated JS code to
run the action (currently it looks like it basically requires JS)
* An `install-rust` action papers over the gotchas about installing
Rust, allowing Rust installation to be a one-liner in the configuration.
* A `binary-compatible-builds` action allows easily configuring the
wheels and the binaries to be "more binary compatible" and handles
things like compilation flags on OSX and Windows while handling the
`centos:6` container on Linux.
* The `github-release` action is the logic using the `@actions/github`
JS package to orchestrate the custom way we manage rolling releases,
ensuring that a new release is made for the master branch under `dev`
(deleting the previous tag/release ahead of time) and then also
manages tagged releases by uploading them there.
I'm hoping that most of the inline actions here will largely go away.
For example `install-rust` should be simply `rustup update $toolchain`
once various environment issues are fixed on Github Actions runner
images. Additionally `github-release` will ideally migrate to something
like https://github.com/actions/create-release or similar once it has
enough functionality. I'm also hoping that the maintenance in the
meantime of these actions is pretty low-cost, but if it becomes an issue
we can look into other solutions!
