On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 14:21 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:45:53PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 09:36 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Jumping in a bit late, but why do we care about this distinction in > > CI at all? In our existing setup, for all projects 'make check' is > > executed if and only if 'make syntax-check' has succeeded, so the > > separation is fairly arbitrary and doesn't really buy us anything as > > far as I can tell. > > I thought we ran the two jobs in parallel but I guess not. No, we don't :) > Mostly I'm > interested in having CI failure mails contain clear error information. > With the jobs we currently have I find the alerts from the syntax-check > jobs clearer/easier to consume, than the check jobs. So I'm wary in > having the syntax-check results just be intermingled with the check job > results. I don't think I'm subscribed to the CI mails you talk about, so generally when I'm investigating a failure I open the full log in the Jenkins Web UI and make liberal use of Ctrl+F. That seems to work well enough for me. If the output of 'ninja test' is too confusing to parse when included in the body of a mail, then I think the solution is to try and improve it, because that's what developers will see when they run the same command in their terminals. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
