-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
Conversation
Can we update the test job’s Also, they all have separate test runs in Testmo; is that the desired result, or would we want to maintain the previous behavior of having them consolidated into a single run? If using a single run, we could still submit results individually since we're already submitting results as threads, which is appropriate for the new approach. |
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.
please hold off until, the one whl updates get merged.
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.
cool. after the one whl approach gets merged, let's update this to use input parameter(s) so we can avoid the explicit job enumeration.
test_directory: entrypoints | ||
secrets: inherit | ||
|
||
KERNELS: |
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.
we should make the "fan out" dynamic so we can drive it via input parameter.
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.
sg - ill let you finish off the PR
It would be better if these could all be part of a single run (and ideally if we could add the I think we should do this as part of a separate PR though |
SUMMARY:
nm-build-test
workflow to run each test group on separate gpunm-test
to receive a specific test directorynm-test-whl
action to receive one test directory for test groupADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
---> mitigant: we could have a single run for code coverage which runs over all the tests that we run ~weekly
FOLLOW UP PR:
TEST
workflow somehow so that in the GH UI we can see more easily which test group failed