Runs the doctests much faster, which is potentially useful in
combination with postgrest-watch for local development.
This implies that doctests run on compiled code, not in a GHCi session,
which has some implications:
- Only exported functions can be tested.
- Imports need to be made explicit in doctests themselves.
On the flipside, this would allow us to potentially include doctest
results in code coverage, I believe.
This change is a requirement to vendor hasql, which otherwise breaks the
existing doctests: hasql contains a .hsc file, which *needs* to be
compiled - not interpreted - to make the tests work.
This test is not really functional (anymore?). It depends on some tokens
expiring - but they don't, really. This is because:
1) Before merging the RSA and HS variants earlier in this patch series,
they ran roughly 15s and 34s respectively in CI.
2) Since PostgREST takes a clock skew of up to 30 seconds into account,
there would be *at most* 4s of expiring tokens in a test run - and
*only* in the HS case, not for RSA.
This test is not very interesting, really: It's hard to imagine to be
able to produce a regression that would slow down the no-cache case, but
would *not* show when a cache is used.
Instead of creating separate test suites for the key type, the PostgREST
instance now accepts both keys via a JWKSet and the targets are
generated 50/50 for both.
The results are still reported seperately by using a different URL,
which shows up as separate rows in the results.
ghcr does not support uppercase letters, which was not a problem when
testing in my fork. But the PostgREST org's name obviously has uppercase
letters in it, so we need to lowercase these for the ghcr namespace.
This reverts commit 840d3f99ed.
This was a nice idea in theory, but in practice this means that the
build jobs do not run at all on the default branch anymore. This means
the caches they push to won't be used by any other jobs, neither on the
tag pipelines, nor on PRs. This in turn makes all of these jobs really
slow.
Not helpful!
Previously this would only fail if *each* row had `:x:` in it, which was
never the case, because the header never has it. It is supposed to fail
when *at least one* row has an ❌.
This reports the percentage change between the current head branch and
the main branch, which is exactly the number we'll want to make our
decisions on "success or fail" on.
CI failures will initially be reported for regressions of 5% or more on
an individual number.
Because we separate loadtest results per URL now, we can move the error
tests into the regular mixed bag of loadtests - we will be able to tell
from the misspelled URLs when we hit a regression in that area.
We should be able to do similar things for JWT tests, but we'll need
more infrastructure here.
Instead of taking wild guesses at the runtime of the target generation
itself, we're just making sure to reset the system time to a fixed value
when we ultimately start PostgREST. This allows us to create the right
JWT expiry values ahead of time.
No need to do this in as many jobs. Splitting all the github stuff from
docker stuff into two jobs is enough. This still allows to conditionally
enable docker jobs in contributors repos, depending on whether the
relevant docker credentials are provided - but avoids using too many
concurrent runners.
No need to spin up full VM runners for small automation tasks, when we
can use single-CPU runners in containers instead.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/runners/github-hosted-runners#single-cpu-runners
(some of this will potentially not work, because dependencies in the
slim image might not be available - however, it makes no sense to create
this as a PR, because all jobs touched here run on branches only. Thus
pushing directly to main)
The most likely offender to fail early is jwt-rsa-cache-worst - which
then cancels *all* loadtests at once. This is unnecessary churn for CI.
Instead we can re-run only that one test later.
The scheduled linkcheck job fails without notification to maintainers.
To catch the failure, a github workflow step has been added which
comments on issue #4106 so that the maintainers get notified.
Signed-off-by: Taimoor Zaeem <taimoorzaeem@gmail.com>
