Hi Tom, On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 07:03, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 09:10:07PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 11:58, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 08:07:26PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Avoid needing to know about the internal .bm-work directory, by passing > > > > the -w flag to buildman. > > > > > > > > Also drop the repeated call to buildman since the first one should show > > > > all the expected output. We only need to use -s if we are building > > > > multiple boards and want the errors to be coalesced. In this case we are > > > > only building a single board. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > .gitlab-ci.yml | 9 ++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.yml b/.gitlab-ci.yml > > > > index b29d59d942..bbd05aa872 100644 > > > > --- a/.gitlab-ci.yml > > > > +++ b/.gitlab-ci.yml > > > > @@ -29,11 +29,11 @@ stages: > > > > script: > > > > # From buildman, exit code 129 means warnings only. If we've been > > > > asked to > > > > # use clang only do one configuration. > > > > + - export UBOOT_TRAVIS_BUILD_DIR=/tmp/${TEST_PY_BD} > > > > - ret=0; > > > > - tools/buildman/buildman -o /tmp -P -E --board ${TEST_PY_BD} > > > > ${OVERRIDE} > > > > - || ret=$?; > > > > + tools/buildman/buildman -o ${UBOOT_TRAVIS_BUILD_DIR} -w -E > > > > + --board ${TEST_PY_BD} ${OVERRIDE} || ret=$?; > > > > if [[ $ret -ne 0 && $ret -ne 129 ]]; then > > > > - tools/buildman/buildman -o /tmp -seP --board ${TEST_PY_BD}; > > > > exit $ret; > > > > fi > > > > > > The repeated call is so that when we have a CI error from buildman the > > > error is at the bottom of the output and we don't have to hunt for it, > > > so I'm not sure this is a developer-friendly change. > > > > I don't quite get this, since the two buildman calls are one after the > > other. What difference do you see in the output? > > Instead of having the errors be throughout the page we see something > like: > arch: +BOARD1 BOARD2 > +(BOARD1,BOARD2) error.. > > At the bottom of the page. So you open the failed build link, hit "End" > and there's where to find what to fix.
Yes I see. But in this case we are only building a single board so there should be no difference. BTW it looks like we are not using the -l flag for the 'multiple build' case, so we shouldn't see the (BOARD1,BOARD2) thing. Regards, Simon