archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <>
To: Junio C Hamano <>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <>,,
	Johannes Schindelin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci(github): bring back the 'print test failures' step
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 22:00:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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

> On Fri, Jun 10 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <> writes:
>>> When ci/ 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

      reply	other threads:[~2022-07-25 20:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-08 10:43 [PATCH] ci(github): bring back the 'print test failures' step Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-06-08 23:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-06-09 13:06 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-06-10 16:40   ` Junio C Hamano
2022-06-10 17:32     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-07-25 20:00       ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).