From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ci/run-build-and-tests: take a more high-level view
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 18:22:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTk142o5xkN0jHB6y1h=4zYBwhpwdTxG0oO3Ox+xqdgdQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2ff51bb5dacfe084166de106e9a864c902f0f36.1643050574.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 3:02 PM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the web UI of GitHub workflows, failed runs are presented with the
> job step that failed auto-expanded. In the current setup, this is not
> helpful at all because that shows only the output of `prove`, which says
> which test failed, but not in what way.
>
> What would help understand the reader what went wrong is the verbose
> test output of the failed test.
>
> The logs of the failed runs do contain that verbose test output, but it
> is shown in the _next_ step (which is marked as succeeding, and is
> therefore _not_ auto-expanded). Anyone not intimately familiar with this
> would completely miss the verbose test output, being left mostly
> puzzled with the test failures.
>
> We are about to show the failed test cases' output in the _same_ step,
> so that the user has a much easier time to figure out what was going
> wrong.
>
> But first, we must partially revert the change that tried to improve the
> CI runs by combining the `Makefile` targets to build into a single
> `make` invocation. That might have sounded like a good idea at the time,
> but it does make it rather impossible for the CI script to determine
> whether the _build_ failed, or the _tests_. If the tests were run at
> all, that is.
>
> So let's go back to calling `make` for the build, and call `make test`
> separately so that we can easily detect that _that_ invocation failed,
> and react appropriately.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
> diff --git a/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh b/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ windows*) cmd //c mklink //j t\\.prove "$(cygpath -aw "$cache_dir/.prove")";;
> -export MAKE_TARGETS="all test"
> +run_tests=t
>
> case "$jobname" in
> linux-gcc)
> @@ -41,14 +41,18 @@ pedantic)
> # Don't run the tests; we only care about whether Git can be
> # built.
> export DEVOPTS=pedantic
> - export MAKE_TARGETS=all
> + run_tests=
> ;;
> esac
>
> # Any new "test" targets should not go after this "make", but should
> # adjust $MAKE_TARGETS. Otherwise compilation-only targets above will
> # start running tests.
> -make $MAKE_TARGETS
The comment talking about MAKE_TARGETS seems out of date now that
MAKE_TARGETS has been removed from this script.
> +make
> +if test -n "$run_tests"
> +then
> + make test
> +fi
> check_unignored_build_artifacts
This changes behavior, doesn't it? Wth the original "make all test",
if the `all` target failed, then the `test` target would not be
invoked. However, with the revised code, `make test` is invoked even
if `make all` fails. Is that behavior change significant? Do we care
about it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-25 4:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 98+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-24 18:56 [PATCH 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 1/9] ci: fix code style Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 2/9] ci/run-build-and-tests: take a more high-level view Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-24 23:22 ` Eric Sunshine [this message]
2022-01-25 14:34 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 3/9] ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-25 23:48 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 4/9] ci/run-build-and-tests: add some structure to the GitHub workflow output Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-02-23 12:13 ` Phillip Wood
2022-02-25 13:40 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 5/9] tests: refactor --write-junit-xml code Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-26 0:10 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 6/9] test(junit): avoid line feeds in XML attributes Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 7/9] ci: optionally mark up output in the GitHub workflow Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 8/9] ci: use `--github-workflow-markup` " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-24 18:56 ` [PATCH 9/9] ci: call `finalize_test_case_output` a little later Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-01-26 0:25 ` [PATCH 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-27 16:31 ` CI "grouping" within jobs v.s. lighter split-out jobs (was: [PATCH 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-02-19 23:46 ` [PATCH 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful Johannes Schindelin
2022-02-20 2:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-02-20 15:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-02-21 8:09 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-02-22 10:26 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-02-20 12:47 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-02-22 10:30 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-02-22 13:31 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-02-23 12:07 ` Phillip Wood
2022-02-25 12:39 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-02-25 14:10 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-02-25 18:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-02-26 18:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-01 2:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-01 6:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-01 10:18 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-01 16:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-01 10:10 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-01 16:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-01 10:20 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-04 7:38 ` win+VS environment has "cut" but not "paste"? Junio C Hamano
2022-03-04 9:04 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-07 15:51 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-07 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-09 13:02 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-10 15:23 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-07 15:48 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-07 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-02 10:58 ` [PATCH 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful Phillip Wood
2022-03-07 16:07 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-07 17:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-09 11:44 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-07 17:12 ` Phillip Wood
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] ci: fix code style Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] ci/run-build-and-tests: take a more high-level view Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] ci/run-build-and-tests: add some structure to the GitHub workflow output Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] tests: refactor --write-junit-xml code Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] test(junit): avoid line feeds in XML attributes Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] ci: optionally mark up output in the GitHub workflow Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] ci: use `--github-workflow-markup` " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] ci: call `finalize_test_case_output` a little later Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-03-01 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful Junio C Hamano
2022-03-02 12:22 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-07 15:57 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-07 16:05 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-07 17:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-09 10:56 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-09 13:20 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-03-09 19:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-03-09 19:47 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-25 0:48 ` Victoria Dye
2022-03-25 9:02 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-25 18:38 ` Victoria Dye
2022-05-21 21:42 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-05-21 23:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-05-22 18:48 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-05-22 19:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-05-23 12:58 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-05-22 23:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-05-23 18:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-05-23 19:21 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-05-23 9:05 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-05-23 18:41 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-05-24 8:40 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 00/12] " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 01/12] ci: fix code style Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 02/12] tests: refactor --write-junit-xml code Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 03/12] test(junit): avoid line feeds in XML attributes Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 04/12] ci/run-build-and-tests: take a more high-level view Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 05/12] ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 06/12] ci/run-build-and-tests: add some structure to the GitHub workflow output Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 07/12] ci: optionally mark up output in the GitHub workflow Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 08/12] ci(github): skip the logs of the successful test cases Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-24 10:47 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 09/12] ci(github): avoid printing test case preamble twice Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 10/12] ci: use `--github-workflow-markup` in the GitHub workflow Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 11/12] ci(github): mention where the full logs can be found Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-05-21 22:18 ` [PATCH v3 12/12] ci: call `finalize_test_case_output` a little later Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPig+cTk142o5xkN0jHB6y1h=4zYBwhpwdTxG0oO3Ox+xqdgdQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).