Skip to content

[VMR] Add support for join point vertical job in vmr-build.yml #4218

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

Closed
Tracked by #3739
ViktorHofer opened this issue Mar 12, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by dotnet/sdk#43288
Closed
Tracked by #3739

[VMR] Add support for join point vertical job in vmr-build.yml #4218

ViktorHofer opened this issue Mar 12, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by dotnet/sdk#43288
Assignees

Comments

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

ViktorHofer commented Mar 12, 2024

Contributes to #3739
Depends on #4215

A join point vertical job isn't much different to a normal vertical vmr-build job aside from:

Two new parameters

  1. reuseBuildArtifactsFrom: This parameter lists the jobs that the join point job depends on. This parameter should support multiple values and the order is important. Artifacts from the job name listed first are preferred in case of duplicates with other jobs listed here.
  2. buildPhase: This parameter identifies the build phase of the join point job. This should be a value > 1.

The existing job steps need to be updated to also work in a non-source-only build mode: https://github.com/dotnet/installer/blob/986cd8e87e84681dfa2dc11efa85ce2a2b15176e/eng/pipelines/templates/jobs/vmr-build.yml#L168-L210

The artifacts from the previously built verticals should be copied into the VMR's root artifacts folder. If a file already exists then it should not overwritten. This enables the priority system so that i.e. win-x64 artifacts are preferred over win-x86.

@directhex
Copy link

I'm assuming use of "Phase" here is a typo, the other issues (including the design doc) seem to have settled on "Pass"

@directhex
Copy link

reuseBuildArtifactsFrom is already a (single string) parameter, I assume the intent here is to replace that with an array so things scale, and fix up all existing usages to work with the modified syntax

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants