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?
regards, tom lane