Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

Cutting CI build times: prebuilt Arrow and build configuration

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#799 2 comentarios 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
35/100
Tipo de issue
Refactorización
Claridad
Necesita aclaración
Estado de actividad
Tranquilo
Stack tecnológico
cmake, cpp, github-actions
Área
build-system, ci-cd, performance

Línea de trabajo

Comienza leyendo los workflows existentes de GitHub Actions, cpp-linter.yml, el archivo de toolchain de CMake y las mediciones del fork descritas en el issue. Compara las propuestas de configuración de Arrow, build-flavor, configuración de Windows, trigger y sccache con la matriz actual. Se considera terminado cuando se haya implementado un subconjunto acordado de cambios y la matriz completa de build y pruebas confirme la cobertura prevista y las mejoras en el tiempo de CI.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

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?
Lenguaje dominante
C++
Estrellas
223
Forks
127
Merge medio
1 d 13 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
28

Preparar el entorno

Aún no hemos revisado los archivos de configuración de este proyecto. Empieza por su README y consulta nuestra guía para la primera contribución para los pasos generales.

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de apache/iceberg-cpp

Todos los issues de apache/iceberg-cpp

Issues similares

Más issues de C++

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.