Re: js/ci-github-workflow-markup output regression
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 3, 2022, 19:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqpmjpeedq.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <220603.86fskmxd43.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
>> Further, since this failure is outside of any `test_expect_success` or >> `test_expect_failure`, the error message about this is not even included >> in the weblogs (but of course it is included in the full logs that are >> included in the build artifacts). For the record, here is the error >> message: > > ...this part of it though seems like a pretty bad regression in your > merged-to-next js/ci-github-workflow-markup topic, which just happens to > be unearthed by this CI failure.
Indeed it makes it impossible to figure it out things like this case. But ...
Show 5 quoted lines
> But this does look easy to "solve" with a quicker fix, just bringing > back the "ci/print-test-failures.sh" step so you can at least expand it, > and not have to go to the "summary" and download the *.zip of the log > itself. As that shows we still have the raw log there, it just didn't > make it to the new GitHub Markdown formatting mechanism.
... it seems a solution is possible? Care to send in a patch (or perhaps Dscho already has a counter-proposal)?
Thanks.