Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Which makes a great guinea pig for the CI output improvement topic. > > So, I created two variants of 'seen' with this linux-leaks breakage. > One is with the js/ci-github-workflow-markup topic on this thread. > The other one is with the ab/ci-github-workflow-markup topic (which > uses a preliminary clean-up ab/ci-setup-simplify topic as its base). > They should show the identical test results and failures. The two runs to look at have been updated. - The one with Ævar's change was missing the primary "workflow markup" topic (it only had preliminary clean-up topic), so it is not a fair feature-to-feature comparison to begin with. - The other one with Johannes's change was done with the version before the latest round from yesterday, which has improvements. With all the other in-flight topics (including the one that shows failures in linux-leaks job) merged to the same base in the same order, I prepared two variants of 'seen' that resulted in these logs: - https://github.com/git/git/runs/6546816978 - https://github.com/git/git/runs/6546750379 One is with both of the required topics from Ævar (with a fix-up [*]), and the other is with the latest from Johannes's series. I do not want to taint other folks' eyes with my observations, so I'd send my impression in a separate message as a response to this message after waiting for some time. Thanks. [Footnote] * 76253615 (ci: optionally mark up output in the GitHub workflow, 2022-04-21) added references to ci/print-test-failures.sh and ci/print-test-failures-github.sh to the workflow file, while the latter script does not exist, but it appears that these references want to run the same script, so I've made a stupid and obvious fix-up today before pushing the result of merging all out. This prevented "make test || ci/print-test-failures.sh" from running correctly [*], ever since 76253615 (ci: optionally mark up output in the GitHub workflow, 2022-04-21) was queued, and it seems that nobody noticed nor complained. Sigh.
