From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci(github): bring back the 'print test failures' step
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:32:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <220610.86edzws9q0.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtu8sfp52.fsf@gitster.g>
On Fri, Jun 10 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>> When ci/print-test-failures.sh was last in this file before 08dccc8fc1f
>> (ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow,
>> 2022-05-21) there was no "name" field, that's an unrelated change that
>> shouldn't be part of a narrow regression fix.
>>
>>> + if: failure() && env.FAILED_TEST_ARTIFACTS != ''
>>
>> We likewise just had "if failure()" then, is the distinction different
>> in all these cases?
>>
>>> + shell: bash
>>
>> ...and you've made every single one of them run with "bash" instead of
>> the default shell, which is another "change while at it" that isn't
>> discussed.
>
> If it is so important to support all the other shells in the GitHub
> workflows environment, we can discuss fix-up patches on top or
> replacement patches, but does that really matter? If this were main
> Makefile or ci/*.sh that are supposed to be usable by places other
> than GitHub Actions environment we use for the CI there, of course
> it would be worth to try being extra portable, but it may be even
> beneficial to "fix" .github/workflows/* stuff, so that we won't have
> to be affected by mistaken use of non-portable shell construct
> written there, perhaps?
It just looks like a mistake. The Windows sections need an explicit
"bash" shell, but nothing else does, and the Windows sections had
explicit names for somes stuff, but the other ones did not.
So I think thas was just a case of copy/pasting the first section(s)
rather than bringing back the pre-image. I think just bringing back the
old behavior makes sense for a regression fix in a re-roll.
Aside from that I think it's very useful to not rely on bash, for future
directions of being able to use this tooling more portably, c.f. what I
did in my series where you can run "like CI" locally, which I'd like to
do on Solaris, AIX & whatever else without it being a portability
hassle.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-10 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-08 10:43 [PATCH] ci(github): bring back the 'print test failures' step Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-06-08 23:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-06-09 13:06 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-06-10 16:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-06-10 17:32 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2022-07-25 20:00 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
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=220610.86edzws9q0.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com \
--to=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.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.
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).