-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve output readability: warnings vs errors #17
Comments
Hi @etanshaul - this request makes sense at first reading. Do you have any GH workflow execution(s) you are able to share that I could look at to get a better sense of the painpoint here? |
hey @ChrisCarini - unfortunately I can't share the full execution, but hopefully these snippets help get the idea across: When I open the check after noticing the failed run on my PR, I see: This is the first piece of friction. My eyes are drawn to the error lines After Some digging, I realize I need to expand the line that says:
In here, there are hundreds of lines including: Standard things like verificaiton setup:
To deprecation warnings like:
As mentioned, these deprecation warnings are currently not blocking PRs as we have configured them. Finally, after sifting through the logs, I find something like this:
And slightly further below:
With the "real" issue. There is no easy way to arrive at the above without sifting through all the logs or searching through matches of the string "compatibility problems". Hopefully that helps! |
@all-contributors please add @etanshaul for ideas |
I've put up a pull request to add @etanshaul! 🎉 |
Hello! we are successfully using this verifier on our plugin's repo. We have it configured currently so that only
compatibility_problems
stop the build. We do unfortunately have a lot of deprecation warnings as well that we intend to fix at some point. However, it is currently quite hard to parse the output of the check to get at the actual blocking issue.Request:
Format the verification output in such a way that makes it easier to get out the violations of the configured
failure_levels
. I'm leaving it open as to how that would look, but currently we have to scroll through a lot of logs / make extensive use ofctrl
+f
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: