Added IBM Jdk8 build support to travis-ci configuration

[ameyjadiye]

No description provided.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 96.653% when pulling 90b5426 on ameyjadiye:travis-ibmjdk8 into 5f498c0 on apache:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 96.653% when pulling 90b5426 on ameyjadiye:travis-ibmjdk8 into 5f498c0 on apache:master.

[garydgregory]

I wonder if we should use the verify Maven goal instead of test.

[britter]

You can simply run mvn at the end without specifying any goals, because we have configured a defaultGoal in our pom.

[ameyjadiye]

thanks @britter for pointing this out. fixed now!

[ameyjadiye]

Hi @garydgregory , I think removing test is not good idea, better we can have verify along with test

[joehni]

In Maven "verify" implies "test", since "verify" is a later step in the Maven build lifecycle.

[chtompki]

I would prefer to use library/ibmjava:8-jsk because it's marked on dockerhub as "official" whereas ibmcom is just public. It's a bit curious though. It seems that they both point to the same place (repository) one points to "master" and one points to a githash.

ibmcom/ibmjava:8-sdk - https://github.com/ibmruntimes/ci.docker/blob/master/ibmjava/8/sdk/x86_64/ubuntu/Dockerfile

library/ibmjava:8-sdk - https://github.com/ibmruntimes/ci.docker/blob/a9a184211f9feef1f2bdd0330ff8ae95e6c015cf/ibmjava/8/sdk/x86_64/ubuntu/Dockerfile

[chtompki]

This is a curiosity I'm not sure how to solve.

[ameyjadiye]

Hi @chtompki , I just compared them and found both Dockerfile belongs to same repository, I took the one from master. Official belongs to some past commit. I prefer to go with official library/ibmjava:8-sdk though.

[chtompki]

The apt-get update here might take a long time.

[ameyjadiye]

Hi @britter @garydgregory @chtompki

Flashed a though, can we use our own image for this ? we can build it from library/ibmjava:8-sdk. Rather doing apt-get update and apt-get install -y maven again and again on fly we can just build our own with below Dockerfile on Dockerhub, I also found we have apache account so it will be easy to publish it there. same can be reused by some other project in apache. (that's why commons is made for anyway 😊 )

from library/ibmjava:8-sdk

RUN apt-get update 
RUN apt-get install -y maven  

[chtompki]

+1

[ameyjadiye]

Created one image containing maven with ibmjava8, same can be pushed to apache dockerhub repo

https://hub.docker.com/r/ameyjadiye/ibmjava8/

[ameyjadiye]

@chtompki, I think we are good to merge this.

[chtompki]

Agreed. Will pull this in tonight or in the morning (UTC-4)

[chtompki]

I'm about to pull this in, but I wonder if we could put in either issues or PR's on the official "maven" docker image whose docker files are given here: https://github.com/carlossg/docker-maven such that we could get oracle java as well as ibm java supported.

I've opened the following issue for tracking purposes:
carlossg/docker-maven#25

I'm not sure, but I could see licensing being the main blocker to those being brought into the project.

[PascalSchumacher]

This does not seem to really work. It looks like the ibm jdk build is run after each (oracle8, openjdk(7|8)) build and actually fails, but the build is still marked successful, e.g.:

[INFO] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 2.039s
[INFO] Finished at: Wed Jun 14 20:58:38 UTC 2017
[INFO] Final Memory: 10M/143M
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin:3.0.0:clean (default-clean) on project commons-text: Failed to clean project: Failed to delete /home/travis/build/apache/commons-text/target/surefire-reports/org.apache.commons.text.similarity.LevenshteinDetailedDistanceTest.txt -> [Help 1]

e.g. https://travis-ci.org/apache/commons-text/jobs/243003865 (see raw build log)

[PascalSchumacher]

I guess this failure is also the reason that the coveralls integration is broken.

[chtompki]

Hm. I'll give this a look.

[ameyjadiye]

Hi @PascalSchumacher , where did you see build is failing ? I see all builds passed given in your link https://travis-ci.org/apache/commons-text/jobs/243003865,

Yes ibmjdk8 is running after each build , that's how Travis handling it , but its ok over the cost of not checking code with ibmjdk8

And if build fails it do mark build as failed i did verified that because maven return exit code as -1 which all the way go to Travis to mark RED.

At this point all (openjdk7, oraclejdk7, oraclejdk7, ibmjdk8*3) = 6 builds as passing .

I see some exception on findbug library and that's not issue with Commons Text code but in findbug code and that's because they might not have considered ibmjdk8 for their build.

[PascalSchumacher]

The build failure I quoted occurs after the findbugs exceptions.

[chtompki]

I believe the reason that we're getting a "success" to be the fact that the docker command exits with a 0. So might we want to do a {docker run -v pwd:/work library/ibmjava:8-sdk /bin/bash -c "apt-get update && cd work && apt-get install -y maven && mvn} || exit 1 in the docker command.

Further, I've been thinking about this more:

1. I submitted some changes to the official maven docker image (which I think we should be using). 2. Would we want to have two builds here, one that builds in a bunch of containers, and a second (presumably running on the target usage jdk) that does the coveralls bit?
2. Depending on how we do this we loose a certain amount of paralellization.

I think I'll bubble this up to the ML for more discussion. It seems clear to me that folks want to do this, but it's just a matter of how.