Skip to content
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

Improve CI performance #449

Closed
3 of 4 tasks
bruno-garcia opened this issue Dec 6, 2021 · 5 comments
Closed
3 of 4 tasks

Improve CI performance #449

bruno-garcia opened this issue Dec 6, 2021 · 5 comments

Comments

@bruno-garcia
Copy link
Member

bruno-garcia commented Dec 6, 2021

CI has been continuously built with a single/serial pipeline. That adds to the overall build time as we add new validations, etc.

The goal is to run in parallel what makes sense. And to avoid installing Unity on each run, which can be done with a customer Docker file on Linux:

image

@lucas-zimerman
Copy link
Collaborator

@bruno-garcia not sure how efficient this could be but what if we map a remote disk to Github actions and instead of installing Unity all the time, we just simply use the one that was installed on the remote disk?

@vaind
Copy link
Collaborator

vaind commented Feb 4, 2022

@lucas-zimerman that's an interesting idea. If we could map a read-only drive from some cloud provider with the unity pre-installed that could be good.

I was originally thinking about something similar - instead of using github cache (which isn't employed correctly because it constantly hits the size limit) - use a "manual" cache implementation, fetching pre-installed unity zip from AWS s3 bucket and extracting it (while streaming; GH cache seems to download, then extract). So that could be another option if the remote drive didn't work

@bruno-garcia
Copy link
Member Author

Consider also: #312

@bruno-garcia
Copy link
Member Author

@vaind seems like this issue can be closed?

@vaind
Copy link
Collaborator

vaind commented Feb 24, 2022

@vaind seems like this issue can be closed?

I'll still do some minor improvements here and there but yes, the overall goal of this issue seems fulfilled

@vaind vaind closed this as completed Feb 24, 2022
Repository owner moved this from Backlog to Done in Mobile & Cross Platform SDK Feb 24, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants