From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
To: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk
Cc: Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 16:11:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c991fe7d-6230-4600-a038-b051993e0e2d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHwyqnUO0zvr+hPT2t0CG-7D9vZuWBRdj1RjC356WEuXaZ9Faw@mail.gmail.com>
On 05/10/2026 14:59, Harald Nordgren wrote:
>>> Is this enough to call this a regression? Then maybe it's not worth
>>> doing this part at all.
>>
>> Yes, I think we should drop this patch. The first step to debugging a
>> test failure is to look at the test output, so the current behavior
>> where clicking on the links on the summary page takes you to the test
>> output is more useful than taking you to a diff that may not even show
>> the test that failed. The first patch is definitely worth keeping as it
>> makes it much easier to see the LSAN output.
>
> I played with instead showing the file name (and line when available)
> as part of the annotation text, and leaving the linking as it is. I
> think it could gives us the best of both worlds:
>
> memory leak logged in t1060 (t1060-object-corruption.sh)
>
> and
>
> failed: t1060.17 partial clone of corrupted repository
> (t1060-object-corruption.sh:141)
>
> What do you think?
I guess having a bit more detail could be useful, I certainly don't object.
Thanks
Phillip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-05 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-25 18:54 [PATCH] ci: point leak-sanitizer failures at the actual test and error Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-09-25 20:26 ` Ben Knoble
2026-09-25 21:43 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-09-27 15:19 ` Phillip Wood
2026-09-27 19:52 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-09-28 18:54 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-09-28 18:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ci: annotate leaks and stop a leak-sanitizer script at its first failure Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-09-28 20:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-29 7:47 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-09-28 18:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ci: point test failures and fixed known breakages at their file and line Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-09-28 20:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-30 6:09 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-09-30 6:09 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] ci: annotate leaks and stop a leak-sanitizer script at its first failure Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-09-30 14:56 ` Phillip Wood
2026-09-30 6:09 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] ci: point test failures and fixed known breakages at their file and line Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-09-30 14:56 ` Phillip Wood
2026-09-30 18:40 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-09-30 14:37 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script Junio C Hamano
2026-09-30 15:52 ` Phillip Wood
2026-09-30 18:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-01 18:44 ` [PATCH v4 " Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-01 18:44 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] ci: annotate leaks and stop a leak-sanitizer script at its first failure Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-01 18:44 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] ci: point test failures and fixed known breakages at their file and line Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-01 19:49 ` Phillip Wood
2026-10-01 20:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-02 8:04 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-10-03 8:11 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-03 8:11 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] ci: annotate leaks and stop a leak-sanitizer script at its first failure Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-03 8:11 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] ci: point test failures and fixed known breakages at their file and line Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-03 13:03 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script Phillip Wood
2026-10-03 19:02 ` Phillip Wood
2026-10-04 11:51 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-10-05 13:23 ` Phillip Wood
2026-10-05 13:59 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-10-05 15:11 ` Phillip Wood [this message]
2026-10-04 12:03 ` Harald Nordgren
2026-10-06 6:56 ` [PATCH v6 " Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-06 6:56 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] ci: annotate leaks and stop a leak-sanitizer script at its first failure Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-06 6:56 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] ci: point test failures and fixed known breakages at their file and line Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget
2026-10-06 9:52 ` [PATCH v6 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script Phillip Wood
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c991fe7d-6230-4600-a038-b051993e0e2d@gmail.com \
--to=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=ben.knoble@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=haraldnordgren@gmail.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/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.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.