Add Continuous Integration

[gparmer]

Add a CI infrastructure to aWsm. Run a subset of the tests on each PR to validate the soundness of the request.

[geky]

A note here for anyone else looking at this. I was able to get Travis to a nearly working stage on this branch: https://github.com/geky/aWsm/blob/travis/.travis.yml

But I've taken some detours:

1. Looking at wasi-sdk integration, currently on my master (geky@69ad542), this would let us use wasi-sdk's releases which have precompiled binaries:
   https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sdk/releases/tag/wasi-sdk-8

   It looks like wasi-sdk can't be a complete replacement for now, so we'll probably need to host a precompiled wasmception binary, which isn't the end of the world. (or a preprepared docker image, but I have less experience there).

2. I'm also actually exploring Azure Pipelines as an alternative to Travis. On my local machine the tests are close to the 30-minute cut-off and Azure's unlimited time (but limited parallel jobs) may be a better fit. It also looks like it has less of Travis's annoying quirks. I may end up adopting Azure Pipelines in some other repos.

[Others]

I think we should restructure the awsm directories based off the wasi-sdk work. Maybe something like this:

aWsm/{rust program, essential runtime files}
aWsm_wasmception/{wasmception, wasmception runtime files, wasmception programs, script to run wasmception programs through aWsm}
aWsm_wasi_skd/{wasi_skd, wasi_skd runtime files, wasi_skd programs, script to run wasi_skd programs through aWsm}

[geky]

Oh, just saw this. Does the proposed layout change with #19? The difference between wasmception and wasi-sdk is one file, so it may not need to be restructured?

On the other hand, we still need to do the full silverfish -> awsm rename (script here gparmer#1). So it would be a good time.

[gparmer]

I think that if @geky has a PR that works and makes progress, then we can add an issue for this restructuring. @Others do you think that we can proceed with reviews on #19 and proceed with gparmer#1?

[geky]

I've also just gotten most of the CI working. After exploring the area (a lot has changed in a couple years!), it seems like GitHub actions is the best option at the moment.

You can see the CI working here. You may have to click "show checks" to show the status updates, but it leave a status on each commit with the runtime results from code_benches/run.py. It also uploads the benchmarks.csvs to the repo's "Actions" page:

• Test PR: Test PR geky/aWsm#3
• benchmarks.csv (previous run): https://github.com/geky/aWsm/actions/runs/201917128

Still tinkering with a few of the CI parts, trying to figure out how best to handle the actual status updates as it needs an OAuth token with the "commit status" permissions. It may end up needing a bot user.

[bushidocodes]

I believe that this issue should be fully completed by PR #20 and follow-on PRs. Closing to clean up the issue tracker.