ba0b4304ec
3c5da69a23ci: remove un-needed lint_run*.sh files (willcl-ark)2aa288efddci: fix annoying docker warning (will)dd1c5903e8ci: add ccache hit-rate warning when < 75% (will)f427284483doc: Detail configuration of hosted CI runners (will)3f339e99e0ci: dynamically match makejobs with cores (will)4393ffdd83ci: remove .cirrus.yml (will)bc41848d00ci: port lint (will)d290a8e6eaci: port msan-depends (will)9bbae61e3bci: port tsan-depends (will)bf7d536452ci: port tidy (will)549074bc64ci: port centos-depends-gui (will)58e38c3a04ci: port previous-releases-depends-debug (will)341196d75cci: port fuzzer-address-undefined-integer-nodepends (will)f2068f26c1ci: port no-IPC-i686-DEBUG (will)2a00b12d73ci: port nowallet-libbitcoinkernel (will)9c2514de53ci: port mac-cross-gui-notests (will)2c990d84a3ci: force reinstall of kernel headers in asan (will)884251441bci: update asan-lsan-ubsan (will)f253031cb8ci: port arm 32-bit job (will)04e7bfbcebci: update windows-cross job (will)cc1735d777ci: add job to determine runner type (will)020069e6b7ci: add Cirrus cache host (will)9c2b96e0d0ci: have base install run in right dir (will)18f6be09d0ci: use docker build cache arg directly (will)94a0932547ci: use buildx in ci (will)fdf64e5532ci: add configure-docker action (will)33ba073df7ci: add REPO_USE_CIRRUS_RUNNERS (will)b232b0fa5eci: add caching actions (will)b8fcc9fcbcci: add configure environment action (will) Pull request description: This changeset migrates all current self-hosted CI jobs over to hosted [Cirrus Runners](https://cirrus-runners.app/). These runners cost a flat rate of $150/month, and we qualify for an open source discount of 50%. Therefore they are $75/month/runner. One "runner" should more accurately be thought of in terms of the number of vCPU you are purchasing: https://cirrus-runners.app/pricing/ or in terms of "concurrency", where 1 runners gets you 1.0 concurrency. e.g. a Linux x86 Runner gets you 16 vCPU (1.0 concurrency) and 64GB RAM to be provisioned as you choose, amongst one or more jobs. Cirrus Runners currently only support Linux (x86 and Arm64) and MacOS (Arm64). This changeset does **not** move the existing Github Actions native MacOS runners away from being run on Github's infrastructure. This could be a follow up optimisation. Runs from this changeset using Cirrus Runners can be found at: https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin2/actions which shows an uncached run on master ([CI#1](https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin2/actions/runs/16298637161)), an outside pull request ([CI#3](https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin2/actions/runs/16303305483?pr=1)) and an updated push to master ([CI#4](https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin2/actions/runs/16304182527)). These workflows were run on 10 runners, and we would recommend purchasing a similar number for our CI in this repo to achieve the speed and concurrency we expect. We include some optional performance commits, but these could be split out and made into followups or dropped entirely. ## Benefits ### Maintenance As we are not self-hosting, nobody needs to maintain servers, disks etc. ### Bus factor Currently we have a very small number of people with the know-how working on server setup and maintenance. This setup fixes that so that "anyone" familiar with GitHub-style CI systems can work on it. ### Scaling These do _not_ "auto-scale"/have "unlimited concurrency" like some solutions, but if we want more workers/cpu to increase parallism or increase the runner size of certain jobs for a speed-up we can simply buy more concurrency using the web interface. ### Speed Runtimes aproximate current runtimes pretty well, with some jobs being faster. Caching improvements on pull request (re-runs) are left as future optimisations from the current changeset (see below). ### GitHub workflow syntax With a migration to the more-commonly-used GitHub workflow syntax, migration to other providers in the future is often as simple as a one-line change (and installing a new GitHub app to the repo). If we decide to self-host again, then we can also self-host GitHub runners (using https://github.com/actions/runner) and maintain new GH-style CI syntax. ### Reporting GitHub workflows provide nicer built-in reporting directly on the "Checks" page of a pr. This includes more-detailed action reporting, and a host of pretty nice integrated features, such as [Workflow Commands](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-what-your-workflow-does/workflow-commands-for-github-actions) for creating annotations that can print messages during runs. See for example at the bottom of this window where we report `ccache` hitrate, if it was below 90%: https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin/actions/runs/16163449125?pr=1 These could be added conditionally into our CI scripts to report interesting or other information. ## Costs ### Financial Relative to competitors Cirrus runners are cheap for the hosted CI-world. However these are likely more expensive than our current setup, or a well-configured (new) self-hosted setup. If we started with 10 runners to be shared amongst all migrated jobs, this would total $750/mo = $9000/yr. Note that we are not trying to comptete here on cost directly. ### Dependencies We would be dependent on Cirrus infra. ## Forks - Forks should be able to run CI without paid Cirrus runners. This behaviour is achieved through a rather verbose `runs-on:` directive. - This directive hardcodes the main repo (unfortunately you cannot use the `env` github context in this field in particular, for some reason). - This directive also allows for a fork to patch the `runs-on:` field in the ci.yml file if they want to use Cirrus Runners too. - The workflow otherwise will fallback to the GitHub free runners on forks. - This cirrus cache action transparently falls back to github actions cache when not running on cirrus, so forks will get some free github caching (10GB per repo). All jobs work on forks, but will run (slowly) on GitHub native free hosted runners, instead of Cirrus runners. They will also suffer from poor cache hit-rates, but there's nothing that can be done about that, and the situtation is an improvement on today. ## Migration process The main org should also, in addition to pulling code changes: 1. Permit the actions `docker/setup-buildx-action@v3` and `docker/login-action@v3` to be run in this repo. ## Caching For the number of CI jobs we have, cache usage on GitHub would be an issue as GH only provides 10GB of cache space, **per repo**. However cirrus provides [10 GB per runner](https://cirrus-runners.app/setup/#speeding-up-the-cache), which scales better with the number of runners. The `cirruslabs/action/[restore|save]` action we use here redirects this to Cirrus' own cache and is both faster and larger. In the case that user is running CI on a fork, the cirrus cache falls back transparently to GitHub default cache without error. ### ccache, depends-sources, built-depends - Cached as blobs via `cirruslabs/actions/cache` action. - Current implementation: - On `push`: restores and saves caches. - On `pull_request`: restores but does **not** save caches. This means a new pull request should hit a _pretty relevant_ cache. Old pull requests **which are not being rebased on master** may suffer from lower cache hit-rate. If we save caches on all pull request runs we run the risk of evicting recent (and more relevant) cache blobs. It may be possible in a future optimisation to widen this to save on pull request runs too, but it will also depend on how many runners we provision and what cache churn rates are like in the main repo. ### Docker build layer caching - Cached using the `gha` cache backend - These cache blobs compete for space with `ccache`, `depends-sources` and `depends-built` caches - `gha` cache allows `--cache-from` to be used from pull requests, which does not work using a registry cache type (technically we could use a public read-only token to get this working, but that feels wrong) This backend does network i/o and so are marginally slower than our current disk i/o cache. ## But what about... `x`? We have tested many other providers, including [Runs-on](https://runs-on.com/), [Buildjet](https://buildjet.com/), [WarpBuild](https://www.warpbuild.com/), and GitHub hosted runners (and investigated even more). But they all fall short in one-way or another. - Runs-On and Buildjet (and others) require installing GH apps with much too-liberal permissions (e.g. `Administration: Read|Write`) for our use-case. - GitHub hosted runners suffer from all of high costs, lower speed, small cache, and the requirement for a GitHub Teams subscription. - WarpBuild seems to be simply too expensive. ## TODO: To complete migration from self-hosted to hosted for this repo, the backport branches `27.x`, `28.x` and `29.x` would also need their CI ported, but these are left for followups to this change (and pending review/changes here first). ----- Work and experimentation undertaken with m3dwards ACKs for top commit: maflcko: re-ACK3c5da69a23🏗 m3dwards: ACK3c5da69a23achow101: ACK3c5da69a23janb84: re ACK3c5da69a23Tree-SHA512: 9f7f2dddf1a5eebc56b4101663283d4219d189cda6054dba760f1288bed9e6ed3f2fa029a5caedc76c31b1271ea0a0cb0967a796086360d8f5be8277379b6397
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree
For an immediately usable, binary version of the Bitcoin Core software, see https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/.
What is Bitcoin Core?
Bitcoin Core connects to the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network to download and fully validate blocks and transactions. It also includes a wallet and graphical user interface, which can be optionally built.
Further information about Bitcoin Core is available in the doc folder.
License
Bitcoin Core is released under the terms of the MIT license. See COPYING for more information or see https://opensource.org/license/MIT.
Development Process
The master branch is regularly built (see doc/build-*.md for instructions) and tested, but it is not guaranteed to be
completely stable. Tags are created
regularly from release branches to indicate new official, stable release versions of Bitcoin Core.
The https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository is used exclusively for the development of the GUI. Its master branch is identical in all monotree repositories. Release branches and tags do not exist, so please do not fork that repository unless it is for development reasons.
The contribution workflow is described in CONTRIBUTING.md and useful hints for developers can be found in doc/developer-notes.md.
Testing
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more pull requests than we can review and test on short notice. Please be patient and help out by testing other people's pull requests, and remember this is a security-critical project where any mistake might cost people lots of money.
Automated Testing
Developers are strongly encouraged to write unit tests for new code, and to
submit new unit tests for old code. Unit tests can be compiled and run
(assuming they weren't disabled during the generation of the build system) with: ctest. Further details on running
and extending unit tests can be found in /src/test/README.md.
There are also regression and integration tests, written
in Python.
These tests can be run (if the test dependencies are installed) with: build/test/functional/test_runner.py
(assuming build is your build directory).
The CI (Continuous Integration) systems make sure that every pull request is tested on Windows, Linux, and macOS. The CI must pass on all commits before merge to avoid unrelated CI failures on new pull requests.
Manual Quality Assurance (QA) Testing
Changes should be tested by somebody other than the developer who wrote the code. This is especially important for large or high-risk changes. It is useful to add a test plan to the pull request description if testing the changes is not straightforward.
Translations
Changes to translations as well as new translations can be submitted to Bitcoin Core's Transifex page.
Translations are periodically pulled from Transifex and merged into the git repository. See the translation process for details on how this works.
Important: We do not accept translation changes as GitHub pull requests because the next pull from Transifex would automatically overwrite them again.