Hacktoberfest 2026: die Issues, die Maintainer für den Oktober markiert haben – offen und einsteigerfreundlich. Hacktoberfest-Issues durchsuchen

Cutting CI build times: prebuilt Arrow and build configuration

Offen
  • Stimmt etwas nicht?
#799 2 Kommentare 0 Reaktionen 0 zugewiesene Personen Auf GitHub ansehen

Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 2 Tagen

@abnobdoss arbeitet bereits daran.

Seit 26.7.2026.

  • #853 von @abnobdoss — offen

Bewertung

Schwierigkeit
5/5
Geschätzter Aufwand
Über eine Woche
Anfängerfreundlichkeit
35/100
Issue-Typ
Refactoring
Klarheit
Muss geklärt werden
Aktivitätsstatus
Ruhig
Tech-Stack
cmake, cpp, github-actions
Bereich
build-system, ci-cd, performance

Rechercherichtung

Beginne damit, die vorhandenen GitHub Actions-Workflows, cpp-linter.yml, die CMake-Toolchain-Datei und die im Issue beschriebenen Messungen der Forks zu lesen. Vergleiche die Vorschläge für Arrow-Setup, Build-Flavor, Windows-Konfiguration, Trigger und sccache mit der aktuellen Matrix. Als abgeschlossen gilt die Aufgabe, wenn eine vereinbarte Teilmenge der Änderungen implementiert ist und die vollständige Build- und Testmatrix die beabsichtigte Abdeckung und Verbesserungen der CI-Zeit bestätigt.

Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.

Beschreibung

I have some CI changes I'd like to propose. They go a bit deeper than the recent caching work, so I wanted to open an issue first to align on direction before pursuing any of them. The pieces below are independent; taking forward only some of them works fine.

Resolving Arrow from conda-forge

Eleven jobs build the vendored Arrow and Parquet from source, but the toolchain already prefers a prebuilt one (the FetchContent declaration uses FIND_PACKAGE_ARGS); CI just never installs one. Installing libarrow and libparquet from conda-forge with setup-miniconda (ASF allowlisted) takes that compile out of each leg:

Test leg Build targets Cold build step
Ubuntu 951 to 606 21 to 16 min
macOS 946 to 602 11 to 8 min
Windows 900 to 578 47 to 35 min

(fork measurements; times vary with runner load, target counts don't; the AWS, SQL catalog, sanitizer, and linter legs shrink similarly)

It is also most of our cache pressure: one push to main saves around 10 GB of sccache entries, more than the repository's 10 GB limit by itself, so eviction ends up deleting entries that have no newer replacement. Over the past week about every third push to main rebuilt at least one leg from scratch. With prebuilt Arrow, and without debug info that nothing in CI reads, saves drop under 3 GB.

Coverage holds: the AWS leg keeps building the bundled AWS SDK from source, the Meson legs don't use Arrow, and the sanitizer leg passes against the non-instrumented Arrow. The conda pin would track the version in the toolchain file and bump in the same PR.

Building one library flavor per leg

CI builds with ICEBERG_BUILD_STATIC and ICEBERG_BUILD_SHARED both ON, and the two targets compile the same sources twice (the shared build adds the export define and hidden visibility, so objects can't be reused). The tests link one flavor, so building one roughly halves what a leg compiles of our own code. A static-only fork run passes the full build and test matrix; one leg could keep both ON to keep both exercised.

Windows: build Debug like the other legs

The Unix test legs build Debug; Windows builds Release and has been the slowest leg fairly consistently. MSVC Debug needs embedded debug info (/Z7 via CMP0141) for sccache to cache the objects, and that combination is green on a fork. Windows is currently the only Release build in CI, though, so this is partly a question of what the matrix should cover.

Two smaller cleanups

The test workflows trigger on both push (all branches) and pull_request, and the concurrency groups key on different refs per event, so a branch pushed here with an open PR runs everything twice. Scoping push to main, as cpp-linter.yml already does, drops the duplicates and keeps the post-merge runs that seed the caches. Separately, the sccache steps are copy-pasted across nine jobs in five workflow files; a composite action under .github/actions/ would hold them (and the conda setup) in one place.

Questions

  • Is conda-forge acceptable as a source of prebuilt Arrow in CI, and how would you want the version pin maintained?
  • Single flavor on the test legs: which one, and is it enough to keep one leg building both static and shared?
  • Windows on Debug: fine, or should the matrix keep a Release leg?
  • Any concerns with the composite action or the push trigger scoping?
Vorherrschende Sprache
C++
Sterne
226
Forks
133
Ø Merge
3 T. 13 Std.
Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
27

Entwicklungsumgebung

Dieses Projekt bietet weder Dev-Container noch Dockerfile noch Beitragsleitfaden – die Einrichtung liegt bei Ihnen. Beginnen Sie mit der README; die allgemeinen Schritte stehen in unserem Leitfaden für den ersten Beitrag.

Erste Schritte

  1. Lesen Sie das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
  2. Schreiben Sie ins Issue, dass Sie es übernehmen — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
  3. Forken Sie das Repository und arbeiten Sie in einem Branch.
  4. Öffnen Sie einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.

Mehr aus apache/iceberg-cpp

Alle Issues in apache/iceberg-cpp

Ähnliche Issues

Weitere Issues zu C++

Neue Issues direkt in Ihr Postfach

Eine kurze Übersicht über anfängerfreundliche GitHub-Issues.