Bug #15684
Set up a Jenkins job that builds the website
100%
Description
… and run it upon push to the master branch.
Rationale: it happens that one pushes changes to the master branch (e.g. commit:b0b805ea22dd7ca6ef92faf51deb9b7b4f06d695) that break ./build-website, which in turn breaks all ISO builds. Currently our only way to alert people about the breakage is by notifying them about ISO build failures. Not only many of us tend to ignore such notifications (at least in part for good reasons) but I’m not even sure that these notifications are sent to those who introduced the changes in the base branch. So let’s add a simpler test job that merely checks that the web site still builds, similarly to the one we already have that checks PO files.
Subtasks
History
#1 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-24 09:16:41
- Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
- % Done changed from 0 to 10
Deployed a PoC that only notifies me for now.
#2 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-24 12:21:32
- Assignee changed from intrigeri to sajolida
- % Done changed from 10 to 50
- QA Check set to Ready for QA
Made it so whoever broke the website build is notified over email. And then:
- Web interface for the job: https://jenkins.tails.boum.org/job/build_website_master/
- The notification email will include the end of the output of
./build-website, which is generally all one needs to understand what the problem is.
sajolida, would this have helped you notice that publishing the May report broke the website build? As explained in the description, I don’t believe that the existing notifications about broken ISO build would be as noticeable by the right people, and even if noticeable the right people may not immediately understand that they broke something and should fix it. My hope here is that by scoping this new test to something smaller (“does the website build from the master branch?”) both the “noticeable” and “understanding that it’s your problem” issues should go away.
#3 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-25 16:46:50
Oh, and as a bonus I’ve just noticed: this will give us metrics and historical info about how long it takes to build the website :)
#4 Updated by sajolida 2018-06-26 09:48:18
- Assignee changed from sajolida to intrigeri
- QA Check deleted (
Ready for QA)
> sajolida, would this have helped you notice that publishing the May report broke the website build?
In this particular case, yes! Because I built the website locally as I always and it worked o but my local doesn’t run bin/sanity-check-website which is the part that broke.
Should I close this ticket now?
#5 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-26 10:19:23
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
- Target version changed from Tails_3.9 to Tails_3.8
>> sajolida, would this have helped you notice that publishing the May report broke the website build?
> In this particular case, yes!
Great!
> Because I built the website locally as I always and it worked o but my local doesn’t run bin/sanity-check-website which is the part that broke.
Interesting. Maybe your local version should be run that check then?
> Should I close this ticket now?
I’m doing it.
#6 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-26 11:10:18
- Assignee deleted (
intrigeri) - % Done changed from 50 to 100
- QA Check set to Pass