-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 171
jenkins: cache x64 node.exe for arm64 license file #3315
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
StefanStojanovic
merged 1 commit into
nodejs:main
from
JaneaSystems:mefi-x64-node-cache
Apr 25, 2023
Merged
jenkins: cache x64 node.exe for arm64 license file #3315
StefanStojanovic
merged 1 commit into
nodejs:main
from
JaneaSystems:mefi-x64-node-cache
Apr 25, 2023
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
richardlau
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2023
targos
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2023
Member
targos
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rubberstamp
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
to JaneaSystems/build
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2023
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
to JaneaSystems/build
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 16, 2023
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2023
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
to JaneaSystems/build
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
to JaneaSystems/build
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2024
Fixes: nodejs#3504 Refs: nodejs#3315 Refs: nodejs#3514 Refs: nodejs#3533
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2024
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
to JaneaSystems/build
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2024
Simplifies caching by removing the downloading step. The x64 node.exe is now expected to be already cached before running compile.cmd. The same change was already applied successfully to the release CI. Refs: nodejs#3315
StefanStojanovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2024
Simplifies caching by removing the downloading step. The x64 node.exe is now expected to be already cached before running compile.cmd. The same change was already applied successfully to the release CI. Refs: #3315
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After promoting Windows on ARM64 to a tier 2 platform, as a part of the compilation job in the CI, the ARM64 MSI installer is created. The first node-test-commit-windows-fanned build that did this was 54061. Since then, I've been monitoring all ARM64 builds, and until now, there's been a bit over 750 (the last build checked is 54823).
I noticed that 15 builds, roughly 2%, failed when downloading the x64 node.exe used for generating the license file. Changes proposed here tend to minimize, if not remove errors by caching the x64 node.exe and updating it weekly.
I've already tested these changes in my job that tests migrating to VS2022 (another topic for another day) and saw no issues.