Skip to content

don't build rocksdb in fuel-core #367

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 5, 2021
Merged

don't build rocksdb in fuel-core #367

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 5, 2021

Conversation

sezna
Copy link
Contributor

@sezna sezna commented Nov 4, 2021

This speeds up the build fuel-core pipeline step by around 7 minutes.

@sezna sezna requested review from digorithm and Voxelot November 4, 2021 21:45
@sezna sezna self-assigned this Nov 4, 2021
@sezna sezna added the ci label Nov 4, 2021
@sezna sezna force-pushed the sezna/pipeline-speed branch from bf315f8 to 0b23034 Compare November 4, 2021 22:01
@Voxelot
Copy link
Member

Voxelot commented Nov 4, 2021

You might have better luck spinning up the server in-process with your tests rather than trying to run it as an external process. Take a look at the fuel-client integ tests for an example:
https://github.com/FuelLabs/fuel-core/blob/master/fuel-client/tests/health.rs#L6

As an added bonus you'll be able to set breakpoints in the vm or fuel-core if you need to debug your tests.

edit: I realized the default feature flag was disabling too many things unrelated to rocksdb, so I opened a PR here to improve this. Let me know if this works better for you: FuelLabs/fuel-core#55

@sezna
Copy link
Contributor Author

sezna commented Nov 4, 2021

With that PR merged in to fuel-core, do you think this approach would work for now until we switch to in-process?

@sezna sezna merged commit b5ff9d0 into master Nov 5, 2021
@sezna sezna deleted the sezna/pipeline-speed branch November 5, 2021 00:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants