On 04/08/2017 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> I think it's partially knowing which target failed, and which >>> regression.diffs to display. If we were able to revamp check-world so >>> it outputs a list of targets the regression machinery were able to run >>> individually, it'd probably help? >> Yes, I don't want just to run check-world. > Yup. The situation with the TAP tests (bin-check step) is already a > usability fail: when there's a failure, your first problem is to root > through megabytes of poorly-differentiated logs just to figure out > what actually failed. Treating all of check-world as a single buildfarm > step would be a disaster. > >> Instead of just adding targets to check-world, perhaps we need to look >> at what we can do so that the buildfarm client can discover what checks >> it might run and run them, just as we specify test schedules for pg_regress. > +1. In the meantime, is there any chance of breaking down bin-check into > a separate step per src/bin/ subdirectory? > >
Possibly. I will look when I go to do the missing checks, later today or tomorrow. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers