On 04/08/2017 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@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