Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script

>
> Hi Harald
>
> On 03/10/2026 09:11, Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > Link failure and leak annotations in CI to the test script, so both can be
> > found from the job summary.
> >
> > V5 CI Job where failures and leaks are reported:
> > https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/36979818141/job/110752027863?pr=2426
>
> There does not appear to be any output relating to leaks in that job.
> The first patch hasn't changed so I'm not sure why that is.
>
> > Changes in v5:
> >
> >   * Removed % escaping entirely, verified on CI that it isn't needed. Every
> >     existing test description that uses % renders correctly unescaped.
> >   * Rewrote the file/line commit message with a concrete example (failed:
> >     t1060.17 partial clone of corrupted repository).
>
> You have added
>
>
>      When a test fails, GitHub shows an annotation naming it, for
>      example:
>
>          failed: t1060.17 partial clone of corrupted repository
>
> which shows an example of the current output without the filename or
> line annotations. There is no example of what that output changes to, so
> there is no way for someone reading that message to see what has
> actually changed. After spending some time clicking around in Github I
> think what that patch changes is not the test output of individual jobs
> which you linked to above, but what is displayed on the summary page at
>
> https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/36979818141?pr=2426
>
> That page shows a list of annotations with links to the changes in the
> failed test file. That is a useful improvement but how you expected
> someone reading the commit message to understand what had changed when
> you did not give an example of the new output, and the changes are on a
> different page to the one you linked to in the cover letter is beyond
> me. I'm pretty exasperated that I've had to spend time messing about on
> Github trying to see what has changed because you could not provide a
> link and write a couple of sentences explaining it. After asking what
> this change did in v3 you replied that the commit message wasn't clear
> without explaining what the change actually did. When I asked what the
> change did in practical terms in response to v4 I got no reply. As you
> already know reviewer time is short on this list, so please, when
> someone asks a question answer it rather than replying with an obtuse
> comment or simply ignoring it and sending another patch.
>
> Both these patches are useful improvements, but trying to get an
> explanation of what they did has been like trying getting blood out of a
> stone.