Skip to content
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

jenkins: remove macOS 10.x release machines #3531

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 26, 2023

Conversation

UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member

Main changes

This will remove macOS 10.x release machines in Jenkins pipelines.

Context

On November 1, 2023 macOS 10.x won't be able to notarize the binaries.

Related: #3385 (comment)
Related: nodejs/node#50291

@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member Author

UlisesGascon commented Oct 25, 2023

My last question is.. if this remove the restrictions. How do I remove the machine label for macos10.x in Jenkins? Is it done in the UI? 🤔
Screenshot 2023-10-25 at 17 11 04

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Oct 25, 2023

You can either remove the label from the machine (in the "configure" tab) or remove the machine. When no machine has the label anymore, the label disappears.

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

You can either remove the label from the machine (in the "configure" tab) or remove the machine. When no machine has the label anymore, the label disappears.

Please remove the labels from the CI jobs first otherwise they'll try to run on machines with that label but none will exist leading to the job never completing.

@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member Author

I removed the references to macOS in ee12477 because we will only have macOS11 machines available and all the Node.js versions (18-21) should use them. So there is no need to restrict any machine

Actually, test environment continue have macOS 10.x until Node 18 EOL, so I returned that line in c277017.

@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member Author

Please remove the labels from the CI jobs first otherwise they'll try to run on machines with that label but none will exist leading to the job never completing.

I added this as a requirement in #3532

Copy link
Member

@targos targos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM but only merge after osx1015 is removed from release CI

@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member Author

LGTM but only merge after osx1015 is removed from release CI

Can I do it already? I don't see any proposal release on going https://github.com/nodejs/node/pulls?q=is%3Apr+release+is%3Aopen+proposal

@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member Author

Both Jenkins agents are removed, so I will merge the pr.

Note: I was not able to directly remove/delete the tags as they are dynamic

@UlisesGascon UlisesGascon merged commit 2c6e953 into nodejs:main Oct 26, 2023
1 check passed
@UlisesGascon UlisesGascon deleted the feat/remove-macos10-release branch October 26, 2023 15:40
@richardlau
Copy link
Member

Both Jenkins agents are removed, so I will merge the pr.

@UlisesGascon https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release/ is still showing
image

@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member Author

This is strange. Even if you only select them, the iojs+release is skipping them (see: https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/5/). Therefore, there is no error even if no machines are associated with this label. I did this test in iojs+release-ulises-experimental just few minutes ago.

Maybe the label is there due historical/previously use?

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

This is strange. Even if you only select them, the iojs+release is skipping them (see: https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/5/). Therefore, there is no error even if no machines are associated with this label. I did this test in iojs+release-ulises-experimental just few minutes ago.

Maybe the label is there due historical/previously use?

@UlisesGascon https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/5/ ran for main (e.g. Node.js 22) which means that it will skip macOS 10.15 due to

[ /osx1015/, anyType, gte(21) ],
. I've requested a test build on v18.x-staging, https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/6/, and you can see from https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/6/console that it is trying to run on the (now removed) osx1015 labels.

19:15:50 Node.js major version: 18
19:15:50 Node.js version: 18.18.3
19:15:50 Running nodes
19:15:50 Triggering [iojs+release-ulises-experimental » osx11-x64-release-tar](https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/nodes=osx11-x64-release-tar/)
19:15:50 Triggering [iojs+release-ulises-experimental » osx11-arm64-release-tar](https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/nodes=osx11-arm64-release-tar/)
19:15:50 Triggering [iojs+release-ulises-experimental » osx1015-release-tar](https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/nodes=osx1015-release-tar/)
19:15:50 Triggering [iojs+release-ulises-experimental » osx11-release-pkg](https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/nodes=osx11-release-pkg/)
19:15:50 Triggering [iojs+release-ulises-experimental » osx1015-release-pkg](https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release-ulises-experimental/nodes=osx1015-release-pkg/)

Normally you would edit the job, e.g. https://ci-release.nodejs.org/job/iojs+release/configure, and remove the labels from "Configuration Matrix". I asked in #3531 (comment) to do that first before removing the machines since if you edit the jobs now it won't show the osx1015 labels as no machines are available with them so you cannot deselect them.

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Oct 26, 2023

IIRC you should just open the edit page, save it, and the config won't contain the labels anymore

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Oct 27, 2023

I did that. osx1015 isn't here anymore:
CleanShot 2023-10-27 at 08 11 54

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants