[PATCH 0/2] ci(GitHub): mark up compile errors, too

[PATCH 0/2] ci(GitHub): mark up compile errors, too

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

Just like we mark up test failures, it makes sense to mark up compile
errors, too.

In a sense, it makes even more sense with compile errors than with test
failures because we can link directly to the corresponding source code in
the former case (if said code has been touched by the Pull Request, that
is). The only downside is that this link currently is kind of misleading if
the Pull Request did not even touch the offending source code (such as was
the case when a GCC upgrade in Git for Windows' SDK all of a sudden pointed
out problems in the source code that had existed for a long time already).
We will see how the GitHub Actions engineers will develop this feature
further.

This patch series is based on js/ci-github-workflow-markup. Which also
serves as an example how this looks like if the offending source code was
not touched by the Pull Request:
https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/actions/runs/2461737185 because it still
triggers the above-referenced GCC build failure.

Johannes Schindelin (2):
  ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job
  ci(github): also mark up compile errors

 ci/lib.sh                 | 10 ++++++++--
 ci/make-test-artifacts.sh |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: 3069f2a6f4c38e7e599067d2e4a8e31b4f53e2d3
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1253%2Fdscho%2Fci-mark-up-compile-failures-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1253/dscho/ci-mark-up-compile-failures-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1253
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 1/2] ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

We already do the same when building Git in all the other jobs.

This will allow us to piggy-back on top of grouping to mark up compiler
errors in the next commit.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 ci/make-test-artifacts.sh | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh b/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh
index 646967481f6..74141af0cc7 100755
--- a/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh
+++ b/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh
@@ -7,6 +7,6 @@ mkdir -p "$1" # in case ci/lib.sh decides to quit early
 
 . ${0%/*}/lib.sh
 
-make artifacts-tar ARTIFACTS_DIRECTORY="$1"
+group Build make artifacts-tar ARTIFACTS_DIRECTORY="$1"
 
 check_unignored_build_artifacts
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 2/2] ci(github): also mark up compile errors

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

When GCC produces those helpful errors, we will want to present them in
the GitHub workflow runs in the most helpful manner. To that end, we
want to use workflow commands to render errors and warnings:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions

In the previous commit, we ensured that grouping is used for the build
in all jobs, and this allows us to piggy-back onto the `group` function
to transmogrify the output.

Note: If `set -o pipefail` was available, we could do this in a little
more elegant way. But since some of the steps are run using `dash`, we
have to do a little `{ ...; echo $? >exit.status; } | ...` dance.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 ci/lib.sh | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ci/lib.sh b/ci/lib.sh
index 2f6d9d26e40..b747e34842c 100755
--- a/ci/lib.sh
+++ b/ci/lib.sh
@@ -29,8 +29,14 @@ else
 		set +x
 		begin_group "$1"
 		shift
-		"$@"
-		res=$?
+		# work around `dash` not supporting `set -o pipefail`
+		{
+			"$@" 2>&1
+			echo $? >exit.status
+		} |
+		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2 line=\3::\1/'
+		res=$(cat exit.status)
+		rm exit.status
 		end_group
 		return $res
 	}
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ci(github): also mark up compile errors

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Thu, Jun 09 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:

> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>
> When GCC produces those helpful errors, we will want to present them in
> the GitHub workflow runs in the most helpful manner. To that end, we
> want to use workflow commands to render errors and warnings:
> https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions

The docs you're linking to state:

	::warning file={name},line={line},endLine={endLine},title={title}::{message}

But here...

> +		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2 line=\3::\1/'

You seem to omit the comma, and the CI output itself seems to note the
filename as "compat/win32/syslog.c line=53#L1".

I haven't tested, but is this the issue you noted in the CL as "the only
downside"? I.e. the link to the source code is nonsensical in that CI
output, it links to the diff of the PR itself.

But the GH docs say "associate the message with a particular file in
your repository.", so it would seem that there should be a way to link
to the file at that revision, not only if it was altered in the given
commit.

On the "sed" one-liner, at least GCC supports emitting JSON error
output:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36657869/how-do-i-dump-gcc-warnings-into-a-structured-format

You don't fill in "column" now, but if you used that presumably that
would be easy, and more useful.

It seems clang also supports it, but not any easily machine-readable
format:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#cmdoption-fdiagnostics-format

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ci(github): also mark up compile errors

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> +		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2 line=\3::\1/'

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions#setting-a-warning-message

seems to use comma as field separator, not SP, for files and lines.
We'll see if they are equivalent without getting documented soon, as
I will be adding this to my tree for 'seen' today.  We should throw
a build failure in to see its effect ;-)

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ci(GitHub): mark up compile errors, too

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> Just like we mark up test failures, it makes sense to mark up compile
> errors, too.
>
> In a sense, it makes even more sense with compile errors than with test
> failures because we can link directly to the corresponding source code in

Absolutely ;-).

[PATCH v2 0/2] ci(GitHub): mark up compile errors, too

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

Just like we mark up test failures, it makes sense to mark up compile
errors, too.

In a sense, it makes even more sense with compile errors than with test
failures because we can link directly to the corresponding source code in
the former case (if said code has been touched by the Pull Request, that
is). The only downside is that this link currently is kind of misleading if
the Pull Request did not even touch the offending source code (such as was
the case when a GCC upgrade in Git for Windows' SDK all of a sudden pointed
out problems in the source code that had existed for a long time already).
We will see how the GitHub Actions engineers will develop this feature
further.

This patch series is based on js/ci-github-workflow-markup. Which also
serves as an example how this looks like if the offending source code was
not touched by the Pull Request:
https://github.com/dscho/git/actions/runs/2477526645 because it still
triggers the above-referenced GCC build failure.

Changes since v1:

 * Using a comma in the workflow command now, as described in the official
   documentation ;-) (Thank you, Ævar)
 * The curly bracket construct was replaced by a proper subshell, to avoid
   jumbled output and a race where the exit.status file could be read before
   it was written.

Johannes Schindelin (2):
  ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job
  ci(github): also mark up compile errors

 ci/lib.sh                 | 10 ++++++++--
 ci/make-test-artifacts.sh |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: 3069f2a6f4c38e7e599067d2e4a8e31b4f53e2d3
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1253%2Fdscho%2Fci-mark-up-compile-failures-v2
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1253/dscho/ci-mark-up-compile-failures-v2
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1253

Range-diff vs v1:

 1:  5212c5ec474 = 1:  5212c5ec474 ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job
 2:  19d6e34f038 ! 2:  34daf06bb71 ci(github): also mark up compile errors
     @@ ci/lib.sh: else
      -		"$@"
      -		res=$?
      +		# work around `dash` not supporting `set -o pipefail`
     -+		{
     ++		(
      +			"$@" 2>&1
      +			echo $? >exit.status
     -+		} |
     -+		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2 line=\3::\1/'
     ++		) |
     ++		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2,line=\3::\1/'
      +		res=$(cat exit.status)
      +		rm exit.status
       		end_group

-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v2 1/2] ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

We already do the same when building Git in all the other jobs.

This will allow us to piggy-back on top of grouping to mark up compiler
errors in the next commit.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 ci/make-test-artifacts.sh | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh b/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh
index 646967481f6..74141af0cc7 100755
--- a/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh
+++ b/ci/make-test-artifacts.sh
@@ -7,6 +7,6 @@ mkdir -p "$1" # in case ci/lib.sh decides to quit early
 
 . ${0%/*}/lib.sh
 
-make artifacts-tar ARTIFACTS_DIRECTORY="$1"
+group Build make artifacts-tar ARTIFACTS_DIRECTORY="$1"
 
 check_unignored_build_artifacts
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v2 2/2] ci(github): also mark up compile errors

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

When GCC produces those helpful errors, we will want to present them in
the GitHub workflow runs in the most helpful manner. To that end, we
want to use workflow commands to render errors and warnings:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions

In the previous commit, we ensured that grouping is used for the build
in all jobs, and this allows us to piggy-back onto the `group` function
to transmogrify the output.

Note: If `set -o pipefail` was available, we could do this in a little
more elegant way. But since some of the steps are run using `dash`, we
have to do a little `{ ...; echo $? >exit.status; } | ...` dance.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 ci/lib.sh | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ci/lib.sh b/ci/lib.sh
index 2f6d9d26e40..aa7e979a0bf 100755
--- a/ci/lib.sh
+++ b/ci/lib.sh
@@ -29,8 +29,14 @@ else
 		set +x
 		begin_group "$1"
 		shift
-		"$@"
-		res=$?
+		# work around `dash` not supporting `set -o pipefail`
+		(
+			"$@" 2>&1
+			echo $? >exit.status
+		) |
+		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2,line=\3::\1/'
+		res=$(cat exit.status)
+		rm exit.status
 		end_group
 		return $res
 	}
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] ci(GitHub): mark up compile errors, too

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

>  * The curly bracket construct was replaced by a proper subshell, to avoid
>    jumbled output and a race where the exit.status file could be read before
>    it was written.

I do prefer () when making a subshell in a case like this (e.g.
upstream of a pipe), so I am happy with this version, but the above
is curious.

I am not sure how "jumbled output" is possible, let alone "reading
exit.status before it is written".  The output goes to sed to be
processed either way, nobody else other than "$@" produces such an
output from there, and sed would not exit until it finishes reading
from the upstream so res=$(cat exit.status) won't kick in before the
upstream exits.

Anyway, thanks, will queue.

> Johannes Schindelin (2):
>   ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job
>   ci(github): also mark up compile errors
>
>  ci/lib.sh                 | 10 ++++++++--
>  ci/make-test-artifacts.sh |  2 +-
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 3069f2a6f4c38e7e599067d2e4a8e31b4f53e2d3
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1253%2Fdscho%2Fci-mark-up-compile-failures-v2
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1253/dscho/ci-mark-up-compile-failures-v2
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1253
>
> Range-diff vs v1:
>
>  1:  5212c5ec474 = 1:  5212c5ec474 ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job
>  2:  19d6e34f038 ! 2:  34daf06bb71 ci(github): also mark up compile errors
>      @@ ci/lib.sh: else
>       -		"$@"
>       -		res=$?
>       +		# work around `dash` not supporting `set -o pipefail`
>      -+		{
>      ++		(
>       +			"$@" 2>&1
>       +			echo $? >exit.status
>      -+		} |
>      -+		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2 line=\3::\1/'
>      ++		) |
>      ++		sed 's/^\(\([^ ]*\):\([0-9]*\):\([0-9]*:\) \)\(error\|warning\): /::\5 file=\2,line=\3::\1/'
>       +		res=$(cat exit.status)
>       +		rm exit.status
>        		end_group

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] ci(GitHub): mark up compile errors, too

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Mon, Jun 13 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:

> Just like we mark up test failures, it makes sense to mark up compile
> errors, too.
>
> In a sense, it makes even more sense with compile errors than with test
> failures because we can link directly to the corresponding source code in
> the former case (if said code has been touched by the Pull Request, that
> is). The only downside is that this link currently is kind of misleading if
> the Pull Request did not even touch the offending source code (such as was
> the case when a GCC upgrade in Git for Windows' SDK all of a sudden pointed
> out problems in the source code that had existed for a long time already).
> We will see how the GitHub Actions engineers will develop this feature
> further.
>
> This patch series is based on js/ci-github-workflow-markup. Which also
> serves as an example how this looks like if the offending source code was
> not touched by the Pull Request:
> https://github.com/dscho/git/actions/runs/2477526645 because it still
> triggers the above-referenced GCC build failure.
>
> Changes since v1:
>
>  * Using a comma in the workflow command now, as described in the official
>    documentation ;-) (Thank you, Ævar)

You're welcome!

>  * The curly bracket construct was replaced by a proper subshell, to avoid
>    jumbled output and a race where the exit.status file could be read before
>    it was written.
>
> Johannes Schindelin (2):
>   ci(github): use grouping also in the `win-build` job
>   ci(github): also mark up compile errors

It's still genuinely unclear to me what exactly the expected
before/after result is, and I wish the 2/2 commit would discuss it.

So, in v1 we had this: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/actions/runs/2461737185

Where the *summary* for the CI said e.g. "syslog.c line=53#L1", so that
was the "needs a comma" bug, now it says syslog.c#L53 instead:
https://github.com/dscho/git/actions/runs/2477526645 (your link
above). So that's good.

But re my earlier comment where I asked/wondered if fixing that would
link to the source file at line 53 it still seems to just link to the
diff.

Is that a bug? The desired result? If the commit was modifying syslog.c
would the link work?

Clearly an end result where we link to the source file/lines at the rev
we're testing is much more useful.

I found this discussion:
https://github.community/t/are-github-actions-notice-warning-error-annotations-broken/225674

Which has a link to an example run at:
https://github.com/IronTooch-ColdStorage/Github-AnnotationTest/actions/runs/1782265048

So isn't this for creating "annotations" for just the regions that would
be involved in your diff? I.e. it shows a notice for the line(s)
involved in the diff itself, but presumably nothing else?

If that's the case I think it would be much more useful to just
e.g. wrap $(CC) in some "tee"-like command to spew its output somewhere,
and then have a "step" where we extract the warnings/errors emitted, and
emit URLs you could click on, unless there's some way to make the GitHub
UX emit the same information.

I.e. it'll be quite hit & miss whether the annotation will show up in
the diff, the compiler will often warn about a line some distance away
from the change made, e.g. if a variable is made unused.

Unless the intent is only to aggregate them on the summary page, but
then why do we need to link to the "line" at all, which will at best
work unreliably, and at worst be actively misleading.

In any case, needing to do less reading of the tea leaves would be nice,
i.e. if the commit message explain what the desired change is exactly,
and how it should be handling these cases.

Thanks.