.github/workflows/: Test all optional packages, add workflow for testing all experimental packages

[mkoeppe]

Follow up from #29341.

[mkoeppe]

The present version has an explicit list of the packages to the workflow scripts. This could be made less maintenance-intensive by #29902

---

New commits:

​c182f48	trac 29754: remove packages backporting Python 3 components to Python 2.
​05a6937	Merge commit 'c559f26caf56378c8c4a5652f577986b4f5d431c' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into t/29754/no-py2-backports
​332778d	.github/workflows/ci-cygwin*: Remove build of removed package singledispatch
​b389d77	Merge branch 't/29745/cleanup-spkg-rst-files' into t/29174/remove_autotools_spkg
​963737e	build/pkgs/autotools: Remove
​91b5ae8	Merge branches 't/29823/_github_workflows_ci_cygwin___remove_build_of_removed_packages' and 't/29174/remove_autotools_spkg' into t/29901/_github_workflows___test_all_optional_packages__add_workflow_for_testing_all_experimental_packages
​f582222	.github/workflows/: Test all optional packages, add workflow for testing all experimental packages

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

​f87c885

.github/workflows/: Test all optional packages, add workflow for testing all experimental packages

[mkoeppe]

.github/workflows/: Test all optional packages, add workflow for testing all experimental packages · mkoeppe/sage@f87c885 ​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/141135018

.github/workflows/: Test all optional packages, add workflow for testing all experimental packages · mkoeppe/sage@f87c885 ​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/141135010

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​94ec3c9	Add sage --package update-latest command
​cb7a291	Fixup rebase
​1d36a2e	build/bin/sage-system-python: Try python first
​a91ecab	Merge branch 't/29890/build_bin_sage_system_python__try__python__first' into t/20104/automatic_updates_of_pip_type_packages
​ba6fbb5	Merge branch 't/20104/automatic_updates_of_pip_type_packages' into t/29901/_github_workflows___test_all_optional_packages__add_workflow_for_testing_all_experimental_packages
​4dc7367	.github/workflows: Replace explicit optional/experimental lists by using sage-package
​efb14c3	Suppress linebreaks

[mkoeppe]

​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/runs/789828733

Error processing tar file(exit status 1): write /sage/local/share/pari/elldata/ell366: no space left on device
Error response from daemon: Error processing tar file(exit status 1): write /sage/local/share/stein_watkins/a.010.bz2: no space left on device

[jhpalmieri]

Maybe we don't need to test database_stein_watkins much: if database_stein_watkins_mini works, then since they use the same spkg-install.in, the only issue, I think, is whether the big tarball is corrupt.

[mkoeppe]

Right. There was apparently a point to having that old category of "huge" packages. Wondering how that got lost. --> #29919 (Restore "huge" package type)

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​2a38f51

.github/workflows/tox-optional.yml: Do not test huge packages

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

​1fcafe8

.github/workflows/tox-optional.yml: Do not test huge packages

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

​bd703e4

.github/workflows/tox-optional.yml: Do not test huge packages

[mkoeppe]

New test at ​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/141954265

[mkoeppe]

Filtering out the known huge packages works now.

But there are many timeouts. Will need to split "optional" into 2 parts.

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​fc59886

Merge tag '9.2.beta5' into t/29901/_github_workflows___test_all_optional_packages__add_workflow_for_testing_all_experimental_packages

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​1a408a8

.github/workflows/tox-optional.yml: Split jobs

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​50556a7

Fixup syntax

[mkoeppe]

Tests for experimental packages at ​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/170318716

Tests for optional packages at ​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/170362341

[mkoeppe]

Still exceeds 2 x 6h on ubuntu-xenial, need to split it up more

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​6e3051d

Split up into more jobs

[mkoeppe]

Tests at ​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/170932419 and ​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/170932412

[mkoeppe]

Should remove the testing of sage_numerical_backends_cplex, sage_numerical_backends_gurobi, which require the commercial packages to be installed first

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​6c82896	Even more splitting
​6afe959	Do not try to test packages that need cplex, gurobi

[gh-kliem]

Why are there green checkmarks, if things haven't worked out?

​https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/runs/876312084?check_suite_focus=true

[mkoeppe]

Targets listed in TARGETS_OPTIONAL ignore errors.

[gh-kliem]

Why is that? There is probably a good reason, but I'm curious. How do I efficiently use it then.

[mkoeppe]

Unfortunately a test run can only get a red or a green status on GH Actions. TARGETS_OPTIONAL is designed for additional tests of things that are likely to fail - such as ptest in tox.yml, which always has 1 or 2 failures that we don't want to be signaled by a red status.

There's only a rather shallow reason why currently use TARGETS_OPTIONAL for testing the optional and experimental packages. At the moment the majority of the optional and experimental packages fail, so all of these test runs will fail. Thus there is no information either way. But the green checkmarks look more friendly.

We can change this when we have made some progress in #29900 (Meta-ticket: Fix optional and experimental packages for Sage 9.2).

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-kliem:

How do I efficiently use it then.

Look at the "This run" tab of the whole workflow and search for package names that you're interested in.

[gh-kliem]

Thanks. Yes, sounds reasonable.

From my point of view, optional should mean almost as safe as sage itself and experimental is for all stuff that might or might not work (I guess there are runtime failures as well that make stuff experimental). So adding a doctesting framework for this seems great.

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-kliem:

From my point of view, optional should mean almost as safe as sage itself and experimental is for all stuff that might or might not work (I guess there are runtime failures as well that make stuff experimental).

Yes, I agree with this interpretation.

[gh-kliem]

I think this is a good improvement as it is.

[mkoeppe]

Thanks!