http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pulls.ghtml

I've seen several suggestions in an older thread to improve the tester like posting notifications about failing tests to the corresponding pull request.
Any plans for that?

Also why aren't all pull requests tested there?

On 1/29/2012 7:00 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pulls.ghtml
> 
> I've seen several suggestions in an older thread to improve the tester like posting notifications about failing tests to
> the corresponding pull request.
> Any plans for that?

Plans, yes.  I haven't decided on how I want to structure it.  The main thing I know is that it can't annotate with failure notifications every time it does a build that fails.  My current thinking is that I'll first write a greasemonkey script that integrates the tester results into github so that there's visibility of the current state along-side the pull itself.  That won't help with notifications though.

> Also why aren't all pull requests tested there?

It's a security measure to avoid building just any random bit of code that happens to be submitted.  There's a white list of users it'll run tests for.  I hadn't looked to see if there were requests from new people in a while.  I just added you and a couple others so those requests will be tested now.

Later,
Brad

> My current thinking is that I'll first write a
> greasemonkey script that integrates the tester results into github so that there's visibility of the current state
> along-side the pull itself.

Sounds promising.

> It's a security measure to avoid building just any random bit of code that happens to be submitted.  There's a white
> list of users it'll run tests for.  I hadn't looked to see if there were requests from new people in a while.  I just
> added you and a couple others so those requests will be tested now.

Thanks :)

On as side note, the pull tester sorts by what time the pull request was modified, not when the most recent commit was.  Is this intentional?

On 1/29/2012 8:32 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> On as side note, the pull tester sorts by what time the pull request was modified, not when the most recent commit was.  Is this intentional?
> 

Yes.  It's a way for request to be prioritized higher.  A pull that's receiving comments is much more likely to be pulled than one that isn't, so might as well test it sooner.

"Brad Roberts" <braddr@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:mailman.182.1327902075.25230.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> Yes.  It's a way for request to be prioritized higher.  A pull that's
> receiving comments is much more likely to be
> pulled than one that isn't, so might as well test it sooner.

Makes sense.

The pull tester is amazing, by the way.  It makes life a lot easier.  If anyone's wondering what to get my for my birthday, one of those machines that runs the phobos tests in 1:42 would be great.

On 1/29/2012 10:13 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Brad Roberts" <braddr@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:mailman.182.1327902075.25230.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> Yes.  It's a way for request to be prioritized higher.  A pull that's
>> receiving comments is much more likely to be
>> pulled than one that isn't, so might as well test it sooner.
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> The pull tester is amazing, by the way.  It makes life a lot easier.  If anyone's wondering what to get my for my birthday, one of those machines that runs the phobos tests in 1:42 would be great.
> 

It's an ec2 m2.4xlarge instance.  Feel free to spin one up whenever you feel like it.

btw, another improvement would be precise time information, i.e. incl. the time zone.
Also they should be consistent. It seems to me like http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pulls.ghtml uses a different time than a single result like http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pull.ghtml?runid=47221