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

Toward enabling dashboards on CI #328

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 14, 2018
Merged

Toward enabling dashboards on CI #328

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 14, 2018

Conversation

jamiesnape
Copy link
Contributor

@jamiesnape jamiesnape commented Aug 27, 2018

Part 1 of many. Relates #329.


This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Member

@sherm1 sherm1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I think we missed this PR.
+@SeanCurtis-TRI do you want to review this?

@jamiesnape, there are merge conflicts that need smoothing over.

Reviewed 2 of 4 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 2 of 4 files reviewed, all discussions resolved

Copy link
Contributor

@SeanCurtis-TRI SeanCurtis-TRI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I hadn't missed this -- at the time @jamiesnape created this, I'd expressed the desire that this stuff should happen after we do the next release based on the current paradigm. And then after 0.6.0 is out, we can make all of the big changes related to the discussed overhaul.

What we really need is to figure out what is preventing us from releasing 0.6.0 and then resolving those issues.

Reviewable status: 2 of 4 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @SeanCurtis-TRI)

@jamiesnape
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't think this particular one necessarily needs to wait, however. The others, maybe. I could remove the deprecation warning on the FCL_BUILD_TESTS option if you like, but in practice that is not going to be hit by too many people.

Copy link
Contributor

@SeanCurtis-TRI SeanCurtis-TRI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My ignorance of CMake's inner workings have probably led to a bunch of novice-style questions. But from what I'm able to infer, :LGTM:.

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved


.gitignore, line 30 at r2 (raw file):

# POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

# Author: Jeongseok Lee <jslee02@gmail.com>

BTW The copyright holder, year, and author combination surprised me.


CMakeLists.txt, line 38 at r2 (raw file):

if(NOT CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE AND NOT CMAKE_CONFIGURATION_TYPES)
  set(CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE Release CACHE STRING
    "Choose the type of build; options are Debug Release RelWithDebInfo MinSizeRel."

BTW This appears to both set the default build type as well as prompt the user to do so.


CTestConfig.cmake, line 35 at r2 (raw file):

# Author: Jamie Snape, Kitware, Inc.

set(CTEST_PROJECT_NAME fcl)

BTW This stuff is merely configuration, right? Until it's actually exercised by some CI server, it sets here twiddling its thumbs?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jamiesnape jamiesnape left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved


.gitignore, line 30 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, SeanCurtis-TRI (Sean Curtis) wrote…

BTW The copyright holder, year, and author combination surprised me.

That is what git reports.


CMakeLists.txt, line 38 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, SeanCurtis-TRI (Sean Curtis) wrote…

BTW This appears to both set the default build type as well as prompt the user to do so.

No, if the user sets the build type this never gets triggered. The text is just there to maintain the standard comment in the cache.


CTestConfig.cmake, line 35 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, SeanCurtis-TRI (Sean Curtis) wrote…

BTW This stuff is merely configuration, right? Until it's actually exercised by some CI server, it sets here twiddling its thumbs?

Yes.

Copy link
Contributor

@SeanCurtis-TRI SeanCurtis-TRI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for taking the time to help out my ignorance.

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

@jamiesnape jamiesnape merged commit 339587e into flexible-collision-library:master Dec 14, 2018
@jamiesnape jamiesnape deleted the ci-1 branch December 14, 2018 18:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants