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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix build error #1003

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix build error #1003

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cydrain
Copy link
Collaborator

@cydrain cydrain commented Dec 23, 2024

@cydrain
Fix build error
cbef39c 
Signed-off-by: Cai Yudong <[email protected]>
@sre-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cydrain

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@mergify mergify bot added the dco-passed label Dec 23, 2024
@mergify Mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Dec 23, 2024

@cydrain 🔍 Important: PR Classification Needed!

For efficient project management and a seamless review process, it's essential to classify your PR correctly. Here's how:

  1. If you're fixing a bug, label it as kind/bug.
  2. For small tweaks (less than 20 lines without altering any functionality), please use kind/improvement.
  3. Significant changes that don't modify existing functionalities should be tagged as kind/enhancement.
  4. Adjusting APIs or changing functionality? Go with kind/feature.

For any PR outside the kind/improvement category, ensure you link to the associated issue using the format: “issue: #”.

Thanks for your efforts and contribution to the community!.

@cydrain
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cydrain commented Dec 23, 2024

/kind improvement

foxspy
foxspy reviewed Dec 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
cmake/libs/libfaiss.cmake
@@ -73,7 +74,6 @@ if(CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME STREQUAL "Android" AND CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR STREQUAL "aar
find_package(OpenBLAS REQUIRED)
set(BLAS_LIBRARIES OpenBLAS::OpenBLAS)
else()
find_package(LAPACK REQUIRED)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Presburger pls help take a look~

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.01%. Comparing base (3c46f4c) to head (cbef39c).
Report is 278 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           main    #1003       +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage      0   74.01%   +74.01%     
=========================================
  Files         0       82       +82     
  Lines         0     6951     +6951     
=========================================
+ Hits          0     5145     +5145     
- Misses        0     1806     +1806

see 82 files with indirect coverage changes

@alexanderguzhva
Copy link
Collaborator

lgtm overall
but why was it compiling before?

@cydrain
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cydrain commented Dec 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

lgtm overall but why was it compiling before?

I can't explain clearly why the change of this line caused Milvus build fail. I encountered this compilation issue in my desktop, but it seems that others can compile successfully with same code.
This issue was introduced in PR # 959, and I fixed a part of it in PR # 979. This PR changed the CMakeLists.txt back to its original state before PR # 959

@alexanderguzhva
Copy link
Collaborator

lgtm overall but why was it compiling before?

I can't explain clearly why the change of this line caused Milvus build fail. I encountered this compilation issue in my desktop, but it seems that others can compile successfully with same code. This issue was introduced in PR # 959, and I fixed a part of it in PR # 979. This PR changed the CMakeLists.txt back to its original state before PR # 959

Would it be possible to verify that the Android compiltation does not break?

@cydrain
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cydrain commented Dec 25, 2024

lgtm overall but why was it compiling before?

I can't explain clearly why the change of this line caused Milvus build fail. I encountered this compilation issue in my desktop, but it seems that others can compile successfully with same code. This issue was introduced in PR # 959, and I fixed a part of it in PR # 979. This PR changed the CMakeLists.txt back to its original state before PR # 959

Would it be possible to verify that the Android compiltation does not break?

Discussed with @Presburger , it should be my env issue, Milvus can build pass in the docker env.
So close this PR.

@cydrain
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cydrain commented Dec 25, 2024

/close

@sre-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@cydrain: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

/close

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

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

@foxspy foxspy foxspy left review comments

@PwzXxm PwzXxm Awaiting requested review from PwzXxm

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
approved ci-passed dco-passed kind/improvement size/XS
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@cydrain @sre-ci-robot @alexanderguzhva @foxspy