provide better access to test logs

[zmiklank]

Related: #130

@jamacku PTAL.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.28%. Comparing base (6d060a1) to head (7eebb05).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #132      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.29%   99.28%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines         564      563       -1     
  Branches       61       61              
==========================================
- Hits          560      559       -1     
  Misses          4        4              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[thrix]

did this break recently?

https://redhat-internal.slack.com/archives/C03BRN71JAF/p1709834829608519?thread_ts=1709824147.944019&cid=C03BRN71JAF

[zmiklank]

Hi @thrix. Yes, it seems we stopped showing the tests log URL in our logs in v2.

[phracek]

AS far as I know, it was present in Bash version. See here:

testing-farm-as-github-action/action.yml

Line 91 in 3e8634e

outputs:

[phracek]

LGTM. I looked at code and did not hit any issue.

[jamacku]

@zmiklank, please also add tests for the new output so we do not cause regressions later.

For reference:

testing-farm-as-github-action/tests/action.test.ts

Lines 220 to 224 in 6d060a1

	// Test outputs
	expect(process.env['OUTPUT_REQUEST_ID']).toMatchInlineSnapshot('"1"');
	expect(process.env['OUTPUT_REQUEST_URL']).toMatchInlineSnapshot(
	'"https://api.dev.testing-farm.io/requests/1"'
	);

[zmiklank]

@zmiklank, please also add tests for the new output so we do not cause regressions later.

Good catch, thanks. Added.

[jamacku]

LGTM