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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox