From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62D91F4D7 for ; Mon, 23 May 2022 19:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="opjXQoXd"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229991AbiEWTUe (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2022 15:20:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39024 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229521AbiEWTUV (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2022 15:20:21 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A93014AF4F for ; Mon, 23 May 2022 11:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1317312147A; Mon, 23 May 2022 14:55:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=10X27iHAxgKRbE1Yph49vZR2z LUiBlVh6IEfexoNihc=; b=opjXQoXdnjNNrTEsv31KxPiGnw0bRQHYQRvYxD8w1 wQIO3sQLDXjn45NvKUedImgOoNtCZI+j4CqsUQVHbtk7Zej0sD6Yi0UISYPjQm6w cP1Y1h7Z6bJF1pQMWLKqad0KNA5kHin0Y+HiE6F4AEe1vHnZ3Hs0BF+crgGkBjTG P0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56BF121477; Mon, 23 May 2022 14:55:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.92.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D44D7121476; Mon, 23 May 2022 14:55:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIg?= =?utf-8?B?QXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Victoria Dye , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine , Derrick Stolee , Emily Shaffer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful References: <6b83bb83-32b9-20c9-fa02-c1c3170351c3@github.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 11:55:05 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DDFD1A2C-DAC9-11EC-9EA7-5E84C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > I do not want to taint other folks' eyes with my observations, so I'd > send my impression in a separate message as a response to this > message after waiting for some time. Between the previous and latest of the Johannes's topic, the test output got a lot shorter by discarding the "ok" output and keeping only the failures and skips. Because the readers are mostly interested in seeing failures (they can download the full log if they want to), and this design decision probably makes sense to me. The same "while scrolling, the user has to stare into the gray void for several seconds" is still there and needs a bit of getting used to (I do not know if it is a browser's problem, or something the output can help giving a better user experience---the lines in the folded part may probably not be "counted" correctly or something silly like that). The ones with the topic from =C3=86var last night, as I've mentioned already, lacked the main part of the logic, and it wouldn't have worked correctly because there was a show-stopper bug in one of the steps in it. With that fixed, the "extra click" I complained last night seems to be gone. I guess the same "discard the test steps that successfully ran" trick would give us the same "shorter" output. I observe the same "staring into the gray void while scrolling" when it comes to the print-test-failures output, just as in the output from Johannes's topic. Common to the both approaches, folding output from each test piece to one line (typically "ok" but sometimes "failed" heading) may be the source of UI responsiveness irritation I have been observing, but I wonder, with the removal of all "ok" pieces, it may make sense not to fold anything and instead give a flat "here are the traces of all failed and skipped tests". In any case, either implementation seems to give us a good improvement over what is in 'master'. Thanks.