Marcus - how do you navigate to that view from the Build #890 of PharoLauncher? When I click on the link you show - thats that output I first saw in the console from the list of builds for Pharo Launcher (which is what I was looking for) - and when I click on “Back To Project” it takes me to the 890 build results page - however if I was looking at build 889 - where on that page do I click to see that output?
I think if I understand that - this would give the information we would expect - and then we can either document this, or maybe put some artefact in every build (via a script) that lets people easily navigate to see what a build was composed off (as it seems that the info is there). Tim On that page, On 2 Sep 2014, at 09:14, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > The job is a matrix build... the outer job just triggers the matrix builds > (see the link "default",), the log is there: > > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/PharoLauncher/890/PHARO=30,VERSION=bleedingEdge,VM=vm/console > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys - I’ve noticed that when a build completed on the Inria infrastructure, > for a short time the console output correctly shows all the artefacts that > were used to create that build - e.g. the slices loaded etc. However after a > short time - the output then reverts to something like below (which isn’t as > useful): > > Started by upstream project " > [8mha:AAAAqh+LCAAAAAAAAP9b85aBtbiIQTGjNKU4P08vOT+vOD8…. > originally caused by: > [URLTrigger] A change within the response URL invocation (log) > Building remotely on pharo-contribution-winxp in workspace > C:\builds\workspace\PharoLauncher > > Deleting project workspace… done > --- > > I’ve looked at a few other jobs (I noticed this for Pharo Launcher) and they > seem the same. I think the jobs aren’t configured properly? - As normally (at > least in other languages like Java), the intent is that the console output > reflects what was on the console when the job was run. I have a hunch that > something is overwriting these files before they are archived away. > > As we don’t seem to have other details of what went into a build job (which > is another issue - I would expect the changes page for a build to also show > this info in a better format). > > Do you think this could be fixed? > > tim > > > > > -- > -- > Marcus Denker -- [email protected] > http://www.marcusdenker.de
