kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

67277 Commits

6 Branches

36 Tags

131 MiB

Tree: 042159a509

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Johannes Schindelin	dab73aebd8	ci/run-build-and-tests: add some structure to the GitHub workflow output The current output of Git's GitHub workflow can be quite confusing, especially for contributors new to the project. To make it more helpful, let's introduce some collapsible grouping. Initially, readers will see the high-level view of what actually happened (did the build fail, or the test suite?). To drill down, the respective group can be expanded. Note: sadly, workflow output currently cannot contain any nested groups (see https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/802 for details), therefore we take pains to ensure to end any previous group before starting a new one. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	3 years ago
Johannes Schindelin	08dccc8fc1	ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow When investigating a test failure, the time that matters most is the time it takes from getting aware of the failure to displaying the output of the failing test case. You currently have to know a lot of implementation details when investigating test failures in the CI runs. The first step is easy: the failed job is marked quite clearly, but when opening it, the failed step is expanded, which in our case is the one running `ci/run-build-and-tests.sh`. This step, most notably, only offers a high-level view of what went wrong: it prints the output of `prove` which merely tells the reader which test script failed. The actually interesting part is in the detailed log of said failed test script. But that log is shown in the CI run's step that runs `ci/print-test-failures.sh`. And that step is _not_ expanded in the web UI by default. It is even marked as "successful", which makes it very easy to miss that there is useful information hidden in there. Let's help the reader by showing the failed tests' detailed logs in the step that is expanded automatically, i.e. directly after the test suite failed. This also helps the situation where the _build_ failed and the `print-test-failures` step was executed under the assumption that the _test suite_ failed, and consequently failed to find any failed tests. An alternative way to implement this patch would be to source `ci/print-test-failures.sh` in the `handle_test_failures` function to show these logs. However, over the course of the next few commits, we want to introduce some grouping which would be harder to achieve that way (for example, we do want a leaner, and colored, preamble for each failed test script, and it would be trickier to accommodate the lack of nested groupings in GitHub workflows' output). Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	3 years ago
Johannes Schindelin	b819f1d2ce	ci: parallelize testing on Windows The fact that Git's test suite is implemented in Unix shell script that is as portable as we can muster, combined with the fact that Unix shell scripting is foreign to Windows (and therefore has to be emulated), results in pretty abysmal speed of the test suite on that platform, for pretty much no other reason than that language choice. For comparison: while the Linux build & test is typically done within about 8 minutes, the Windows build & test typically lasts about 80 minutes in Azure Pipelines. To help with that, let's use the Azure Pipeline feature where you can parallelize jobs, make jobs depend on each other, and pass artifacts between them. The tests are distributed using the following heuristic: listing all test scripts ordered by size in descending order (as a cheap way to estimate the overall run time), every Nth script is run (where N is the total number of parallel jobs), starting at the index corresponding to the parallel job. This slicing is performed by a new function that is added to the `test-tool`. To optimize the overall runtime of the entire Pipeline, we need to move the Windows jobs to the beginning (otherwise there would be a very decent chance for the Pipeline to be run only the Windows build, while all the parallel Windows test jobs wait for this single one). We use Azure Pipelines Artifacts for both the minimal Git for Windows SDK as well as the built executables, as deduplication and caching close to the agents makes that really fast. For comparison: while downloading and unpacking the minimal Git for Windows SDK via PowerShell takes only one minute (down from anywhere between 2.5 to 7 when using a shallow clone), uploading it as Pipeline Artifact takes less than 30s and downloading and unpacking less than 20s (sometimes even as little as only twelve seconds). Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	6 years ago

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Johannes Schindelin

dab73aebd8

ci/run-build-and-tests: add some structure to the GitHub workflow output

The current output of Git's GitHub workflow can be quite confusing,
especially for contributors new to the project.

To make it more helpful, let's introduce some collapsible grouping.
Initially, readers will see the high-level view of what actually
happened (did the build fail, or the test suite?). To drill down, the
respective group can be expanded.

Note: sadly, workflow output currently cannot contain any nested groups
(see https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/802 for details),
therefore we take pains to ensure to end any previous group before
starting a new one.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

3 years ago

Johannes Schindelin

08dccc8fc1

ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow

When investigating a test failure, the time that matters most is the
time it takes from getting aware of the failure to displaying the output
of the failing test case.

You currently have to know a lot of implementation details when
investigating test failures in the CI runs. The first step is easy: the
failed job is marked quite clearly, but when opening it, the failed step
is expanded, which in our case is the one running
`ci/run-build-and-tests.sh`. This step, most notably, only offers a
high-level view of what went wrong: it prints the output of `prove`
which merely tells the reader which test script failed.

The actually interesting part is in the detailed log of said failed
test script. But that log is shown in the CI run's step that runs
`ci/print-test-failures.sh`. And that step is _not_ expanded in the web
UI by default. It is even marked as "successful", which makes it very
easy to miss that there is useful information hidden in there.

Let's help the reader by showing the failed tests' detailed logs in the
step that is expanded automatically, i.e. directly after the test suite
failed.

This also helps the situation where the _build_ failed and the
`print-test-failures` step was executed under the assumption that the
_test suite_ failed, and consequently failed to find any failed tests.

An alternative way to implement this patch would be to source
`ci/print-test-failures.sh` in the `handle_test_failures` function to
show these logs. However, over the course of the next few commits, we
want to introduce some grouping which would be harder to achieve that
way (for example, we do want a leaner, and colored, preamble for each
failed test script, and it would be trickier to accommodate the lack of
nested groupings in GitHub workflows' output).

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

3 years ago

Johannes Schindelin

b819f1d2ce

ci: parallelize testing on Windows

The fact that Git's test suite is implemented in Unix shell script that
is as portable as we can muster, combined with the fact that Unix shell
scripting is foreign to Windows (and therefore has to be emulated),
results in pretty abysmal speed of the test suite on that platform, for
pretty much no other reason than that language choice.

For comparison: while the Linux build & test is typically done within
about 8 minutes, the Windows build & test typically lasts about 80
minutes in Azure Pipelines.

To help with that, let's use the Azure Pipeline feature where you can
parallelize jobs, make jobs depend on each other, and pass artifacts
between them.

The tests are distributed using the following heuristic: listing all
test scripts ordered by size in descending order (as a cheap way to
estimate the overall run time), every Nth script is run (where N is the
total number of parallel jobs), starting at the index corresponding to
the parallel job. This slicing is performed by a new function that is
added to the `test-tool`.

To optimize the overall runtime of the entire Pipeline, we need to move
the Windows jobs to the beginning (otherwise there would be a very
decent chance for the Pipeline to be run only the Windows build, while
all the parallel Windows test jobs wait for this single one).

We use Azure Pipelines Artifacts for both the minimal Git for Windows
SDK as well as the built executables, as deduplication and caching close
to the agents makes that really fast. For comparison: while downloading
and unpacking the minimal Git for Windows SDK via PowerShell takes only
one minute (down from anywhere between 2.5 to 7 when using a shallow
clone), uploading it as Pipeline Artifact takes less than 30s and
downloading and unpacking less than 20s (sometimes even as little as
only twelve seconds).

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

6 years ago

3 Commits (042159a5093db5da1be2a90b7c1b88441ece6029)