Giter Site home page Giter Site logo

Comments (8)

schisamo avatar schisamo commented on July 28, 2024

I'm feeling pretty 👎 on this feature. Even if a new package is created from software all of which was git cached it seems we should still perform health check.

Is health checking really that big of an issue?

from omnibus.

seth avatar seth commented on July 28, 2024

I'm confused by your comment @schisamo.

Currently the health check is inefficient because it checks more files than it needs to and because it rechecks files that we know haven't changed (cached builds).

When using local vms to build, the healthcheck step takes enough time to be worth improving. And just in general it seems reasonable to find ways to do a computation once rather than many times.

The proposal, to be clear, is not to optionally disable the healthcheck.

The proposal is to perform a health check after each build. At that point, we know all of the files that the build touched. We health check them. If we use the cache for a build, we can skip the health check. Might also have the advantage of failing builds for bad health early.

from omnibus.

sethvargo avatar sethvargo commented on July 28, 2024

@schisamo @seth is correct (holy crap this is going to get confusing) 😄. @seth I'm going to steal your comment and add it to the PR description for clarity.

from omnibus.

schisamo avatar schisamo commented on July 28, 2024

@seth Thanks for the clarification. I can get onboard with this feature as described. I think the title of this issue was just confusing as it implies we are caching the results of the health check.

from omnibus.

seth avatar seth commented on July 28, 2024

:)

We would be caching the result of the health check, but not in a bogus way :)

from omnibus.

sethvargo avatar sethvargo commented on July 28, 2024

We discussed this as a team today and decided this is not a top-priority. If health checks are taking a long time, we should fix the health check, not cache the results.

from omnibus.

seth avatar seth commented on July 28, 2024

Can you give more detail? If the result was: let's close this because we're not fixing it anytime soon, I'm fine with that. If the decision was, we don't want a fix that caches the health check, then I'm curious for more detail.

from omnibus.

sethvargo avatar sethvargo commented on July 28, 2024

Sure. It's two parts:

  1. As you mentioned, this isn't likely something we want to implement soon.
  2. As we learned with the git caching, cache invalidation is hard.

from omnibus.

Related Issues (20)

Recommend Projects

  • React photo React

    A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.

  • Vue.js photo Vue.js

    🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.

  • Typescript photo Typescript

    TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.

  • TensorFlow photo TensorFlow

    An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone

  • Django photo Django

    The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

  • D3 photo D3

    Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉

Recommend Topics

  • javascript

    JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.

  • web

    Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.

  • server

    A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.

  • Machine learning

    Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.

  • Game

    Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.

Recommend Org

  • Facebook photo Facebook

    We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.

  • Microsoft photo Microsoft

    Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.

  • Google photo Google

    Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.

  • D3 photo D3

    Data-Driven Documents codes.