balacij
commented
3 years ago Sounds good. I think I can contribute some things that I already know about these steps.
This will primarily target the "Build" workflow.
| Step | Approx. time spent | Discussion | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Install system requirements | ~2min | Downloads all system dependencies (compilers for artifacts, tex, fonts, etc). I couldn't figure out how to cache it properly without breaking post-install steps. | |
| Install Stack | <1s | - | |
| Cache dependencies | ~2min on cache hit, 1s else | The main issue with this is how often it doesn't get a cache hit. Needs investigation into why/why not. | |
| Clean previous run | ~1min | Cleans the previous run, but Cabal also updates it's cache here -- this may need investigation into why it's not being cached too. | |
| Update PATH | <1s | Adds Stack exe folder to $PATH | - |
| HLint | ~50s | Downloads HLint (fast), and runs it (slow). I don't think there's much we can do here unless we want to just remove it from the "Build" workflow, and just leave it in the "Test" one. | |
| Install dependencies | ~5min | Installs Haskell package dependencies. It will need investigation into which ones we need/which ones we don't. However, I know that Lens takes a large amount of time to compile (nowhere near 5min though!). | |
| Build | ~3min | We will need to analyze our construction plan, we might be able to reduce it a bit by exporting more files in each package and via adding extra threads (though, GH Actions runner only have 2c/2t). | |
| Stable | ~1min | We can merge this with the above, but it also does extra testing in "Build". Perhaps we can just remove it from "Build" in favour of leaving just in "Test"? | |
| TeX | ~3min | We might be able to do them concurrently via scheduling them as background jobs. This might be a bit difficult to figure out which artifacts broke however. | |
| Code | ~1min | Compiling code, might be able to do the same as "TeX". We might be able to remove it from "Build" entirely, leaving it only in "Test". | |
| Doxygen | ~10s | - | |
| Docs | ~5min | Takes a long time because it has to re-compile the originally compiled code with haddock docs (uses the originally compiled, so it's fast, most time is spend in Haddock generation), and then has to recompile (again, but from clean slate this time -- takes a long time) to generate the smaller version without all-exposed modules | |
| Graphs | ~20s | - | |
| Analysis | ~2.5min | @Ant13731 would probably be best to speak on this. | |
| Build website | ~30s | Code is compiled alongside the "Build" step, and just executed here, so it's pretty fast. However, we might be able to make it a bit faster by removing file copying and making them build in-place (right now, we build artifacts in their own directories and then copy them over to a focal "deploy/" folder for the "Deploy" step) | |
| Deploy | ~20s | Posts website to gh-pages branch (for GitHub Pages). Needs further investigation to see if we want to bring it down further. | |
| POST Cache dependencies | ~1min | Alongside "Clean previous run", this can be investigated to see if we can strip it down further |
We might want to move some tests to just the "Test" workflow, we would just need to commit to which ones really.
Also, for the "Test" workflow, we can probably trim it down by ignoring the second "Haddock docs" build as the first one is fast and does the fully-exposed modules variant (which would catch all bad Haddock comments anyways).
Ant13731
JacquesCarette
I was looking at https://github.com/JacquesCarette/Drasil/pull/2760/checks?check_run_id=3323104120 "live", and some things really take a lot of time & I don't know why they do. For example, installing dependencies takes 5 minutes; the question would be, why are we asking for so many things that are not up-to-date in standard images?
Another is that it takes longer to build the docs than the code build itself, which seems quite odd. That warrants investigation too.