Re: Adding build status to the package list table

[Roel Janssen]

Mark H Weaver writes:

> Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Eric Bavier writes:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-19 13:57, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>>> Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> The list of packages included in Guix [1] provides links to the build
>>>>> status of each package in the details.  I would like to provide this
>>>>> information in a column after "Package details", either as an icon or 
>>>>> as
>>>>> a count (e.g. 3/4 builds succeeded).  This provides a nicer overview 
>>>>> for
>>>>> the current status of the package.
>>>> 
>>>> Sounds good to me, but I'm not sure that either a single icon or a 
>>>> count
>>>> will be very useful.
>>>> 
>>>> We currently support four architectures: x86_64-linux, i686-linux,
>>>> armhf-linux, and mips64el-linux.  There will likely be a fifth for the
>>>> Hurd as well.
>>>> 
>>>> If the status is to be useful, users will need to see at a glance if 
>>>> the
>>>> package builds on their chosen architecture.  A count like 2/4 or 3/4
>>>> doesn't tell me whether the package works on armhf.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I think we'd actually need one new column for each supported
>>>> architecture.  I could imagine more clever solutions as well, but
>>>> somehow it needs to indicate *which* architectures the package builds
>>>> on, not just how many.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> Could we add a small icon in the expanded view next to the current links 
>>> that indicate pass/fail for that architecture?  This could possibly in 
>>> addition to the summary count in the collapsed view.
>>
>> I think that would be a good idea. Adding icons per architecture next to
>> the current links in the expanded view.
>>
>> Then have one column with an indicator for overall success or
>> failure.
>
> What does "overall success or failure" mean?  If a package builds
> successfully on i686 and armhf, and fails on x86_64 and mips64el, does
> that count as an "overall success" or an "overall failure"?

Initially, I was thinking:
When a package has been successfully built on 4/4 architectures, that
would be "success". When a build fails on some architecture, that would
indicate "failure".

That is, if all architectures are treated equally important to Guix.

So in your example, that would count as an "overall failure".

Instead we could use a percentage, in your example that would be 2/4 =
50%. That would still be useless to someone who wants to know whether
the package builds on a specific platform. He could then look in the
detailed view to find that out.

>> Whether this is a count or an icon, I don't know which would be
>> better. I think visually, an icon would be better. A count would be a
>> little more informing.
>>
>> Having four (and in the future five) columns, each with an icon, would
>> be too much I think.
>
> I'm sorry if it seems like too much, but for the reasons I gave above, a
> count or boolean is essentially useless, because it doesn't tell people
> whether it works on their architecture of interest.

You're right. But if you're interested in a single architecture, you
would ideally want to see a single icon as well (that of your
architecture).