On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 08:49:01AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/04/21 at 15:14 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > The python3-buildlog-consultant package now has a "analyse-sbuild-log"
> > command that can parse and analyse sbuild logs and in most cases
> > identity the line or lines that explain why a build failed.
> >
> > E.g.:
> >
> > % analyse-sbuild-log --json ~/build.log
> > {"stage": "build", "section": "Build", "lineno": 857, "kind": "missing-python-module", "details": {"module": "setuptools", "python_version": 3, "minimum_version": null}}
> >
> > This is what powers the line selection for the fragments shown by the
> > Debian janitor for failed builds.
>
> Nice!
> I've done something similar for my archive rebuild scripts[1]. Maybe we
> should try merge efforts in some way?
Perhaps we can share a common data file with the single-line regexes?
That's where the bulk of my effort is today, and that seems like the
easiest way to share efforts.
> [1] see log-parser-* in https://salsa.debian.org/lucas/collab-qa-tools/-/tree/master/lib/collab-qa
> test cases are https://salsa.debian.org/lucas/collab-qa-tools/-/tree/master/test
>
> Some comments based on my own experience:
> - did you consider adding a mode where it would output log lines that
> precede the failure from the last interesting point, to make it easy to
> file bugs?
Yep, it has a context mode (similar to diff) as of yesterday.
> - running your tool against my test cases would be interesting
It seems to identify the problematic line in almost (all?) the same
cases, but doesn't always provide a better classification than your
script does - i.e. it finds python exceptions and segmentation faults
but doesn't call them out as such.
Cheers,
Jelmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature