Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 25, 2025. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@gspencergoog
Copy link
Contributor

Description

I just made a pass on the scenario scripts so that they can be more easily run from the scenario directory, set the ANDROID_HOME correctly, and generally fixed lint errors.

Also compile_android_aot.sh didn't appear to work, and I think I fixed it (it builds now), but that change might not be right (it wasn't pointing to gen_snapshot properly, or to flutter.jar).

I realize that these are mainly temporary scripts, but I needed to run them to test a change, and was having a hard time getting them to run.

@gspencergoog gspencergoog requested a review from dnfield August 19, 2020 20:53
@auto-assign auto-assign bot requested a review from liyuqian August 19, 2020 20:53
@dnfield dnfield requested a review from blasten August 19, 2020 21:13
Copy link
Contributor

@dnfield dnfield left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is probably fine, but @blasten has been doing work getting this stuff running on CI recently and should probably have a look.

It would be good if we could make sure that whatever this does is the same as what's getting done on CI.

@gspencergoog
Copy link
Contributor Author

If these should just be deleted in favor of running a CI script instead, that's fine too. It's confusing to have multiple ways to test something.

popd
SCRIPT_DIR=$(follow_links "$(dirname -- "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")")
SRC_DIR="$(cd "$SCRIPT_DIR/../../.."; pwd -P)"
export ANDROID_HOME="$SRC_DIR/third_party/android_tools/sdk"
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice. this aligns with what the LUCI recipe does. It's good that it makes it consistent.

Comment on lines +70 to +72
mkdir -p "$OUTDIR"
mkdir -p "$FLUTTER_ASSETS_DIR"
mkdir -p "$LIBS_DIR"
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I missed these quotes before. Thanks for fixing!

@blasten
Copy link

blasten commented Aug 19, 2020

Some of these scripts are called by the recipe code.

@gspencergoog do you have any thoughts on migrating these bash script to Dart? I saw you did something similar recently. Maybe a unified package that can be used by the Flutter tool as well as the engine scenarios?

I'm not sure if the gain would justify the work, but just curious if you have any thoughts. Also, cc @jonahwilliams

@gspencergoog gspencergoog force-pushed the scenario_scripts branch 2 times, most recently from 93dabe2 to 77514a0 Compare August 19, 2020 22:56
@gspencergoog
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blasten They could probably be rewritten in Dart pretty easily. As for whether it is worth it, I think it depends on what the ultimate goal is for these: are they just stopgap scripts until a real build system/recipe is used to build them, or are the meant to be "the way" to build/run these tests?

@jonahwilliams
Copy link
Contributor

My understanding is that the engine repo intentionally does not use the tool, but that would otherwise be a reasonable way to build the apps.

I can't see a situation in which the tool delegates building apps to another package though, that would really increase the difficulty in making/rolling changes through

@dnfield
Copy link
Contributor

dnfield commented Aug 19, 2020

At one point there were thoughts of rewriting these in GN (and probably python) so that it would use the same build system as the rest of the repo. I think that might be preferable to Dart in this case, but haven't had time to look at it more seriously.

@gspencergoog gspencergoog force-pushed the scenario_scripts branch 2 times, most recently from aadb9a9 to cd23add Compare August 19, 2020 23:53
@gspencergoog
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK, well, for now I'm content with just improving their usability. LGTM anyone?

Copy link

@blasten blasten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - Would you mind rebasing, so 81027ab triggers the scenario app tests?

@gspencergoog
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blasten Not at all. Done.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants