CI Pipeline Breakup - Implementation Summary¶

Overview¶

Successfully broke down the monolithic CI/CD pipeline into 9 component-based testing workflows as requested.

Problem Statement¶

The original CI pipeline ran all 35 test files (439 tests) in a single workflow, making it: - Slow (~5-10 minutes) - Hard to diagnose failures - Inefficient (all tests run even for small changes) - Blocking for core functionality

Solution Implemented¶

1. Workflow Reorganization¶

Created 9 specialized workflows:

2. Test Distribution¶

Categorized all 35 test files into 8 logical components: - Core: 4 files (models, config, cache) - Providers: 6 files (all provider integrations) - Arbitration: 3 files (provider selection logic) - DSL: 2 files (query parser) - MCP: 3 files (MCP server & tools) - Agents: 5 files (AI workflows & narratives) - Infrastructure: 7 files (compliance, alerts, sessions, etc.) - Integration: 5 files (e2e, live excluded)

3. Smart Triggering¶

Each component workflow uses path triggers to run only when relevant code changes:

on:
  pull_request:
    paths:
      - 'fiml/providers/**'
      - 'tests/test_providers*.py'

4. Coverage Tracking¶

Each workflow uploads coverage with component-specific flags: - Easier to track coverage per component - Better visibility into test quality - Helps identify under-tested areas

Results¶

✅ Core Workflow Performance¶

Before: All 439 tests, ~5-10 minutes After: 64 core tests, ~1 minute

Tests Run:
- test_core.py: 15 tests ✅
- test_cache.py: 18 tests ✅
- test_cache_improved.py: 14 tests ✅
- test_cache_optimizations.py: 17 tests ✅
Total: 64 tests passed in 1.01s

✅ Benefits Achieved¶

1. Fast Feedback: Core tests complete in ~1 minute on every commit
2. Better Diagnostics: Component failures are isolated and easy to identify
3. Parallel Execution: Independent test suites run concurrently on PRs
4. Resource Efficiency: Only run relevant tests based on file changes
5. Comprehensive Coverage: Integration tests still run on PRs and daily

✅ Documentation¶

Created comprehensive documentation: - CI_WORKFLOW_STRUCTURE.md: Complete guide to workflow organization - Updated README.md with CI structure reference - Inline comments in ci.yml explaining the change

Technical Details¶

Workflow Structure¶

All workflows maintain consistent structure: 1. Service setup (Redis, PostgreSQL) 2. Python 3.11 setup 3. Dependency caching 4. TA-Lib installation 5. Python dependencies installation 6. Database initialization 7. Linting (ruff) 8. Type checking (mypy) 9. Test execution 10. Coverage upload

Path Triggers¶

Component workflows trigger on: - Source code changes in their component - Test file changes for that component - PRs to main/develop - Manual workflow dispatch

Integration Testing¶

The integration workflow: - Runs on all PRs (comprehensive check) - Runs daily at midnight UTC (regression detection) - Can be manually triggered - Excludes test_live_system.py (requires external services)

Files Changed¶

Created¶

1. .github/workflows/test-core.yml - Core component workflow
2. .github/workflows/test-providers.yml - Provider workflow
3. .github/workflows/test-arbitration.yml - Arbitration workflow
4. .github/workflows/test-dsl.yml - DSL workflow
5. .github/workflows/test-mcp.yml - MCP workflow
6. .github/workflows/test-agents.yml - Agent workflow
7. .github/workflows/test-infrastructure.yml - Infrastructure workflow
8. .github/workflows/test-integration.yml - Integration workflow
9. CI_WORKFLOW_STRUCTURE.md - Documentation

Modified¶

1. .github/workflows/ci.yml - Now runs only core tests
2. README.md - Added CI structure reference

Validation¶

Local Testing¶

Ran core tests locally with Docker services:

# Started services
docker run -d redis:7-alpine
docker run -d postgres:16-alpine

# Initialized database
psql -h localhost -U fiml_test -d fiml_test -f scripts/init-db.sql

# Ran tests
pytest tests/test_core.py tests/test_cache*.py

# Result: 64 passed, 31 warnings in 1.01s ✅

Code Review¶

• No critical issues identified
• Minor suggestion to upgrade actions to v4 (non-blocking)
• All workflows follow consistent patterns

Security Scan¶

• CodeQL analysis: 0 alerts ✅
• No security vulnerabilities introduced

Migration Path¶

For Developers¶

Before: All tests ran on every commit After: - Core tests run on every commit (fast) - Component tests run when relevant code changes - Integration tests run on PRs and daily

For Reviewers¶

Before: Single workflow status to check After: - Check core workflow for fundamental health - Check component workflows for specific changes - All must pass for merge approval

Success Metrics¶

✅ Primary Goal: Core workflow passes on commits - Core tests isolated and fast - 64 critical tests always validated - ~1 minute execution time

✅ Secondary Goals: - Component isolation achieved (8 categories) - Path-based triggering implemented - Coverage tracking per component - Documentation created

Future Enhancements¶

Potential improvements identified: - [ ] Upgrade GitHub Actions to v4 for consistency - [ ] Add performance benchmarking workflow - [ ] Add security scanning workflow (SAST/DAST) - [ ] Implement test result caching - [ ] Add benchmark comparison on PRs - [ ] Create comprehensive nightly test runs

Conclusion¶

Successfully reorganized the CI/CD pipeline into component-based workflows. The core workflow now provides fast feedback on every commit while component-specific workflows ensure comprehensive testing where relevant. This maintains test quality while significantly improving developer experience and CI efficiency.