Subject: Re: js/ci-github-workflow-markup output regression

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 23:40:31 +0200

On Tue, Jun 07 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 03 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed it makes it impossible to figure it out things like this
>>> case.  But ...
>>>
>>>> But this does look easy to "solve" with a quicker fix, just bringing
>>>> back the "ci/print-test-failures.sh" step so you can at least expand it,
>>>> and not have to go to the "summary" and download the *.zip of the log
>>>> itself. As that shows we still have the raw log there, it just didn't
>>>> make it to the new GitHub Markdown formatting mechanism.
>>>
>>> ... it seems a solution is possible?  Care to send in a patch (or
>>> perhaps Dscho already has a counter-proposal)?
>>
>> The only thing I have at the moment is:
>>
>>     1. git revert -m 1 bd37e9e41f5
>>     2. merge: https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/
>>     3. merge: https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/
>>
>> I.e. to pick this in the sequence I'd proposed doing & have tested
>> thoroughly.
>
> I know you two have difference in opinions, but throwing away
> everything the other party did and forcing your stuff in is not a
> very effective way to work together.

I'm suggesting getting Johannes's patches in combined with the changes &
bugfixes I'd proposed.

So no, not throwing that work away, it would (applied up to 14/14) give
you functionally the same end result that's on "next" now as far as the
new GitHub Markdown output is concerned. The [3] above has links to the
relevant CI output.

I had tried to rebase the above [2] on top of "next" before this
discussion started, I agree that would be ideal, but it's a much larger
logical change that I don't have time to pursue now.

I.e. there's a reason I proposed doing it in that order, a logical
rebasing of [2] on top of bd37e9e41f5 would involve a lot of backing out
of the existing direction taken there. I.e. the whole part where the
split by "steps" provides much of the ci/* specific code in bd37e9e41f5
for free.

>> It also addresses other noted some other regressions in "next", but as
>> noted e.g. in [A] there's other issues in "next", e.g. that even the
>> "raw" trace logs are altered as a side-effect of running with
>> --github-workflow-markup, and of course the major UX slowdowns.
>
> Dscho?  I know you do not care about the UX slowdown as much as
> others, but I am sure you do not consider what is in 'next' is
> perfect. It seems to need further work to go back to the feature
> parity with what it replaced.

Just to be clear [3] up to 14/14 would still exhibit this particular
bug, but with 13/14 it wouldn't from the links in [3] the relevant
outputs are:

 "next" (well, similar): https://github.com/avar/git/runs/6571972194?check_suite_focus=true
 [3] with 14/14: https://github.com/avar/git/runs/6588407676?check_suite_focus=true
 [3] with 13/14: https://github.com/avar/git/runs/6588579493?check_suite_focus=true

I really would like to get is out of this long-running ci/ limbo,
perhaps Johannes has some proposed patches, but I don't think fixing the
outstanding bugs is going to be trivial or easy.  Some of it's hard to
tease apart, e.g. the altered *.out logs seem to require some tricky
test-lib.sh and test-lib-functions.sh changes.

I don't see why wouldn't get all of that code in now though, just hidden
behind a flag, that would take the pressure off dealing with the current
regressions, [2] with 13/14 would do that. Then once those outstanding
issues are fixed we'd just need the one-line 14/14 change to flip the
default CI output.

But is it the smallest possible change on top of what's now in "next"?
No, of course not.

But I don't have those hypothetical patches, just the above. That's all
I meant in reply to the "care to send in a patch?"  upthread.