-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 167
Test CirrusCI with updated superstring [DO NOT MERGE]
#1048
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
Miraculously, @meadowsys reports that the CirrusCI job triggered by this PR produced binaries that appear to work just fine on an Apple Silicon machine. We will proceed with merging the necessary changes into When that PR lands, we should be back to our standard binary-building schedule on all platforms. |
|
OK, the number of “renderer process crashed“ messages I'm seeing in CI is concerning. Trying to get to the bottom of it now. |
|
Take this one, for example. I can't reproduce it locally when I grab a binary from last night's CI run, switch to the |
|
This turns out to be because we weren't on the specific version of |
To clarify: this fixed the messages about encoding errors, but not the renderer crashes, which are all happening on Linux CI jobs. @DeeDeeG is going to push a PR that points to the commit that matches what's published in NPM as a sanity check. |
|
Heartened by @DeeDeeG's experiment, I'm trying all my changes branched off of the version of the repo that's published to NPM. |
…and enable CirrusCI for one more job.
|
OK, one last build with
Re-enabled the CirrusCI silicon build because this is really our best hope. If it works, we'll celebrate in our respective locations. Some of us will grill meats. (That was probably going to happen anyway, but somehow the meat will taste better if the build passes.) |
|
Triumph. The only failure was the Windows binary, and investigation suggests I missed something in my cherry-picking. I'll pick this back up in a couple days. |
|
Nope, it was just that I hadn't added the Next steps:
|
|
I'm troubleshooting why the silicon macOS build failed its Gatekeeper check in a local test on my partner's M1 laptop. As a sanity check, I've temporarily changed the CI config on this PR so that it will generate a signed Intel macOS binary; that will allow me to determine whether this issue has anything to do with Apple's stricter code-signing rules for ARM binaries than for Intel binaries. (I've once again disabled the CirrusCI job for Apple Silicon on this PR; I can enable it again later if I need to.) My preferred outcome is that I discover the same code-signing issue exists with the Intel macOS binary; that would at least suggest that a fix exists, and that I could apply it universally and solve this problem all at once. |
…and trigger an Apple Silicon binary (now that we seem to have figured this out)
My wish came true. The most obscure way for your software to fail a Gatekeeper check (as far as I can tell) is if it wants to reference a If we needed that No code changes in this last commit; just reverting to the ordinary behavior on GitHub Actions (so that signed builds will once again only be produced when we land to |
|
Now that I've gotten confirmation from @meadowsys that we've produced a working Pulsar binary that does not show a scary Gatekeeper dialog… I'm going to close this PR. Next steps:
|
This is designed to kick off a CirrusCI job. If our
superstringapproach is working, that job should produce a functional Pulsar binary for Apple Silicon.