Re: [PATCH] ci(github): bring back the 'print test failures' step

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 25, 2022, 20:00 UTC
Message-ID: <220725.86sfmpneqp.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <220610.86edzws9q0.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 10 2022, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

Show 42 quoted lines

> 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.

It turns out this is also a regression for our CI, if linux-musl fails it'll emit:

    OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: container_linux.go:380:
    starting container process caused: exec: "bash": executable file not
    found in $PATH: unknown