fangohr / octopus-in-spack

Develop Octopus in spack (software packaging)
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
3 stars 4 forks source link

Run make check and make check-short targests (Dev-build) #56

Open iamashwin99 opened 1 year ago

iamashwin99 commented 1 year ago

Add a new target, spack-dev-build which builds the docker file Docker-dev-build. This target aims to use the spack dev-build command to install octopus in a specific directory and then run make checks from it.

iamashwin99 commented 1 year ago

In the latest build, the make check failed:

Failed:  143 / 144
iamashwin99 commented 1 year ago

Ah, figured out the reason for all the tests failing with Martin Leuders, we are using the variable OCT_VERSION to specify the octopus version to spack, but when the test suite executes, this variable interferes with the input parser, which thinks VERSION is an input parameter and thus all the tests skip due to incorrect inp file.

iamashwin99 commented 1 year ago

I feel that the changes required for this PR are now complete. @fangohr what are your thoughts on this PR?

iamashwin99 commented 1 year ago

The new order of RUN fails to install even though the logs says its installed:

203701   │ 2022-11-29T16:08:03.6034265Z make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user/dev-build-serial'
203702   │ 2022-11-29T16:08:05.2377959Z ==> octopus: Successfully installed octopus-12.1-molat6lf7auebazyxtjedgt6ifotszbf
203703   │ 2022-11-29T16:08:05.2378517Z   Fetch: 0.00s.  Build: 8m 36.60s.  Total: 8m 36.60s.
203704   │ 2022-11-29T16:08:05.2379594Z [+] /home/user/spack/opt/spack/linux-debian11-broadwell/gcc-10.2.1/octopus-12.1-molat6lf7auebazyxtjedgt6ifotszbf
203705   │ 2022-11-29T16:13:49.1110735Z Removing intermediate container 7f978c987401
203706   │ 2022-11-29T16:13:49.1119733Z  ---> c9ad4fd4804e
203707   │ 2022-11-29T16:13:49.1120626Z Step 25/40 : RUN . $SPACK_ROOT/share/spack/setup-env.sh &&       spack env activate octopus-serial &&       spack test run --alias test_serial octopus &&       spack test results -l test_serial
203708   │ 2022-11-29T16:13:49.2796493Z  ---> Running in 8b1755d479d4
203709   │ 2022-11-29T16:13:56.2173645Z ==> Warning: No installed packages match spec octopus
203710   │ 2022-11-29T16:13:56.2174028Z ==> Spack test test_serial
203711   │ 2022-11-29T16:13:56.2174267Z ============================= 0 passed of 0 specs ==============================
iamashwin99 commented 1 year ago

The dev-build has issues with the number of jobs requested : https://github.com/fangohr/octopus-in-spack/actions/runs/4364482894/jobs/7631855756

These are the last lines of stderr:

----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are not enough slots available in the system to satisfy the 4
slots that were requested by the application:

  /usr/bin/nice

Either request fewer slots for your application, or make more slots
available for use.

A "slot" is the Open MPI term for an allocatable unit where we can
launch a process.  The number of slots available are defined by the
environment in which Open MPI processes are run:

  1. Hostfile, via "slots=N" clauses (N defaults to number of
     processor cores if not provided)
  2. The --host command line parameter, via a ":N" suffix on the
     hostname (N defaults to 1 if not provided)
  3. Resource manager (e.g., SLURM, PBS/Torque, LSF, etc.)
  4. If none of a hostfile, the --host command line parameter, or an
     RM is present, Open MPI defaults to the number of processor cores

In all the above cases, if you want Open MPI to default to the number
of hardware threads instead of the number of processor cores, use the
--use-hwthread-cpus option.

Alternatively, you can use the --oversubscribe option to ignore the
number of available slots when deciding the number of processes to
launch.
fangohr commented 1 year ago

I think this means we are trying to run an MPI process with 4 processes, but github cannot provide that? Can we tell the octopus tests to only use 2 processes for MPI tests? That may (!) solve the issue.

fangohr commented 7 months ago

Discussion today (with @iamashwin99 @glaweh @lang-m)