From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2026 12:03:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] ci: link failure and leak annotations to the test script
Message-ID: <CAHwyqnWU0z7wHxDnxdoviOBenYJogB7k4GLo2jdO7_M_hSMZWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3587bf44-1b3b-422f-a926-f8481104dfd8@gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 3:03 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I don't understand why this tone is necessary at all.

Yes, I should clarify that it affects the summary.

But I posted a comment regarding the regression you brought up in your
following message, so we should decide what we want before
progressing. The point of this whole topic was to make the leak
reporting less bad, everything else was a bonus.


Harald