Skip to content

build: add QUIC CI job for PRs matching QUIC related paths#63875

Open
pimterry wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:mainfrom
pimterry:quic-ci-job
Open

build: add QUIC CI job for PRs matching QUIC related paths#63875
pimterry wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:mainfrom
pimterry:quic-ci-job

Conversation

@pimterry

@pimterry pimterry commented Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Matching paths notably includes stream/iter (since they're closely related and rapidly evolving together) and ngtcp2, nghttp3 & openssl deps.

The config here is based primarily on test-linux.yml, the diffs are simplifications: PRs only to limit the disruption (don't run on branches & releases etc for now), filtered to specific paths, just one build (ARM only, like test-internet/test-shared), no unusual characters test.

This will fail until #63874 & #63821 are merged - that's expected, QUIC builds are currently broken on main

I'm hoping all the tiny fixes there will go in pretty fast though, happy to discuss the CI job here separately and check the best setup approach for this while QUIC is still experimental. This is my first time touching any of Node CI so let me know if this isn't quite right somewhere.

@nodejs-github-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/actions

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Jun 12, 2026
@pimterry

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

CC @nodejs/quic

This notable includes stream/iter (since they're closely related and
rapidly evolving together) and ngtcp2, nghttp3 & openssl deps.

Based on test-linux.yml, the main differences are simplifications: PRs
only, filtered to specific paths, just one build (ARM only), no unusual
characters test.

Signed-off-by: Tim Perry <pimterry@gmail.com>
@Renegade334

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

At what point do we intend to take quic out from behind the build flag?

@pimterry

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

At what point do we intend to take quic out from behind the build flag?

Hard to say, but at the moment there's still quite a few very breaking API changes to come that are already visible, along with plenty of other work to do on the details. I'd lean towards keeping it behind the build flag for a bit longer, until that settles down somewhat. Obviously it doesn't need to be perfectly stable for an experimental runtime flag, but it's a bit inconvenient if the API breaks every other release.

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

Labels

meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants