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

Add GHC 9.6 CI to the 3.10 branch #8901

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

Kleidukos
Copy link
Member

@Kleidukos Kleidukos commented Apr 6, 2023

Backport of #8840 for the 3.10 branch

@Kleidukos Kleidukos requested review from ulysses4ever and Mikolaj and removed request for ulysses4ever April 6, 2023 18:17
dist-*
key: ${{ runner.os }}-${{ matrix.ghc }}-${{ github.sha }}
restore-keys: ${{ runner.os }}-${{ matrix.ghc }}-

- uses: haskell/actions/setup@v2
id: setup-haskell
with:
ghc-version: ${{ matrix.ghc }}
cabal-version: '3.8.1.0'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's see what CI says. I'm curious if it will twist our hand to bump the cabal version here or not.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

well-spotted, 3.8 has TypeInType

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(My bad, i always rush to hit Comment...) My worry was specifically about the test suite : it's very peculiar about the version of cabal-install you're compiling it with. It now fails with 3.10. You probably will have to try to revert to 3.8 and see if that works...

@Kleidukos Kleidukos changed the title Add GHC 9.6 CI Add GHC 9.6 CI to the 3.10 branch Apr 7, 2023
, Cabal ^>= 3.10.0.0
, Cabal-syntax ^>= 3.10.0.0
, Cabal ^>= 3.10
, Cabal-syntax ^>= 3.10
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought this will make no difference. But it's fine this way, i guess.

@@ -115,6 +115,6 @@ custom-setup
-- and due to Custom complexity and ConstraintSetupCabalMaxVersion
-- it has to be the latest release version plus
-- you have to use the latest cabal-install release
setup-depends: Cabal == 3.8.*,
Cabal-syntax == 3.8.*,
setup-depends: Cabal == 3.10.*,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now this is smart! I could not guess such a solution.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

May this be related the CI old GHCs failure we are seeing right now?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, a priori I thought that this would stay as is was, and the cabal-install in the CI would stay 3.8 also. But I must say I have no explanation for this. It's just a hunch.

@Kleidukos
Copy link
Member Author

Blocked by ulysses4ever/rere#20

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

@Kleidukos there's no ETA for it, so i suggest using allow-newer. That's what I did on master.

validate.sh Outdated
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
HC=ghc
CABAL=cabal
CABALPLAN=cabal-plan
JOBS=4
JOBS=12
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is bold! You realize that it won't affect the CI, right? 'Cause validate.yml sets its own -j and passes it to this script.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ergh, yeah it's a remnant from my local development. :)

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

rere was updated for the latest base btw

@@ -115,6 +115,6 @@ custom-setup
-- and due to Custom complexity and ConstraintSetupCabalMaxVersion
-- it has to be the latest release version plus
-- you have to use the latest cabal-install release
setup-depends: Cabal == 3.8.*,
Cabal-syntax == 3.8.*,
setup-depends: Cabal ^>= 3.10,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, shall we try reverting this to 3.8? This is completely dark art and only affects custom setup tests, so whatever works IMHO.

@Kleidukos
Copy link
Member Author

I'll use GHC 9.6 for the "old GHC" jobs instead of 8.8

@Kleidukos
Copy link
Member Author

Error: Unable to locate executable file: sudo. Please verify either the file path exists or the file can be found within a directory specified by the PATH environment variable. Also check the file mode to verify the file is executa

ah. okay.

@Kleidukos
Copy link
Member Author

E: Unable to locate package ghc-7.10.3-dyn
E: Couldn't find any package by glob 'ghc-7.10.3-dyn'
E: Couldn't find any package by regex 'ghc-7.10.3-dyn'

@Kleidukos Kleidukos force-pushed the use-ghc-9.6-in-ci branch from a377b02 to 834bf18 Compare May 7, 2023 13:27
Copy link
Member Author

@Kleidukos Kleidukos May 7, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

# This job needs an older ubuntu (16.04) cause
# the required old ghcs using the `-dyn` flavour
# are not installable from ppa/hvr in newer ones
# see https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/8011
container:
  image: phadej/ghc:8.8.4-xenial

@phadej I'm not sure I see a corresponding image in your dockerhub profile for 9.6.1-xenial. What can we do to remedy to this? Also, are you still willing to maintain such images?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IIRC, there will be no new images.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever May 22, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think there needs to be new images to achieve what it's supposed to achieve. Also, I don't think this part of the code should have been touched as a part of the backport.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Feel free to toy with it, I'm out of ideas personally :/

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