[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#980520: britney: excuses: reduce verbosity of autopkgtest results



Hi Paul

On 20-01-2021 06:26, Paul Wise wrote:
> The excuses page is often very verbose because of the autopkgtest
> results, especially for packages with lots of reverse dependencies.
> 
> For packages where all the results are Pass, those packages could be
> left out of the excuses altogether, since they don't prevent migration,
> or perhaps grep-excuses should gain an option to hide them instead?

We already did that, because good excuses were way too long, package
that pass *for the current version in testing* are already hidden.
Passing packages that are still shown are those where an update happened
since the successful run, so they are more or less "pending". I realize
that probably nobody realizes this.

I don't know how grep-excuses works.

> For packages where all the results are the same for every arch, the
> excuses could collapse all of those packages into one line.
> 
>   • autopkgtest Regression for foo bar baz
>   • autopkgtest Ignored failure for foo bar baz
>   • autopkgtest Pass for foo bar baz

Sure, except we don't show the passing results.

> For packages with multiple arches you could group arches by the status
> rather than printing the status for each architecture, since the
> architecture names are shorter than the status texts.
> 
>   • autopkgtest for foo/1.2-3: Regression: amd64 arm64 armhf, Ignored failure: ppc64el: Ignored failure, Pass: i386

This requires changes in the logic that writes the excuses, because
currently we just process the items and write the text as we go. So, can
do, but ...

> The combination of these ideas would result in less verbose excuses.

I think we had other ideas on how to improve readability but IIRC, those
had to wait until jessie became EOL, as our ideas weren't compatible
with grep-excuses in jessie. This now happened so we could pick that up.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: