1277039 - webidl-parser-tests mach command now spews output all over

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)

Description

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

This is a regression from bug 1272698.  Before that bug, the mach command defaulted to verbose=False (most useful for manual running), but runtests.py defaulted to verbose=True (most useful for running in automation).  Now both default to verbose=True....

This is particularly bad if you actually have a test failure, because you will simply not see it: it'll scroll off your terminal due to all the TEST-PASS stuff.

Comment 1

[James Graham [:jgraham]]

Attachment: Bug 1277039 - Fix output of |mach webidl-parser-test| to be less verbose by default,

Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/57944/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/57944/

Comment 2

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

I assume you've verified that this correctly goes orange in automation if a failure is introduced?

Comment 3

[James Graham [:jgraham]]

https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=494922d0dad7&selectedJob=22050885

(a different solution to this issue would be to move to structured logging, which would print a summary of the failures at the end of the mach-format output).

Comment 4

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Thank you for checking that.

Structured logging would solve the "hard to find your results" problem, but not the problem of slow terminals or nuking your terminal scrollback.

Comment 5

[Gregory Szorc [:gps]]

Comment on attachment 8760330 [details]
Bug 1277039 - Fix output of |mach webidl-parser-test| to be less verbose by default,

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/57944/#review55118

Comment 6

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/7ec7b62eb5bc
Fix output of |mach webidl-parser-test| to be less verbose by default, r=gps

Comment 7

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/7ec7b62eb5bc

Comment 8

[Liz Henry (:lizzard) (relman/hg->git project)]

Do you want to uplift the fix to aurora since this is a regression from 49? It seems likely to be safe.

Comment 9

[James Graham [:jgraham]]

Since this is testonly it doesn't seem worthwhile to me, but maybe bz disagrees.

Comment 10

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

I don't think we should be uplifting this anywhere.

Comment 11

[David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)]

Setting fix-optional for 49 based on comment 10.