On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 12:18 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 09:38 -0700, Manu Bretelle wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > I was originally going to do a nested structure similar to this too
> > (minus the repeat of test_* entries for subtests. But while discussing this
> > offline with Andrii, a flatter structured seemed to be easier to parse/manage
> > with tools such as `jq`. I am also very probably missing the right
> > incantation for `jq`.
> >
> > Finding whether a test has subtests (currently only adding failed ones,
> > but this could change in the future) would be easier (essentially checking
> > length(subtests)). But neither is it difficult to reconstruct using
> > higher level language.
> >
>
> `jq` query is a bit more complicated with nested structure, but not terribly so:
>
> $ cat query.jq
> .results | map([
> .test_name,
> (.subtests | map([([.test_name, .subtest_name] | join("/")) ]))
> ])
> | flatten
we should record this in the commit, if we go with nested structure :)
it's not "terribly more complicated", but not obvious either for
someone who uses jq very occasionally :)
>
> $ jq -f query.jq test.json
> [
> "test_global_funcs",
> "test_global_funcs/global_func16"
> ]
>
> Test data for reference:
>
> $ cat test.json | sed -r 's/"[^"]{20,}"/"..."/g'
> {
> "success": 1,
> "success_subtest": 24,
> "skipped": 0,
> "failed": 1,
> "results": [{
> "test_name": "test_global_funcs",
> "test_number": 223,
> "message": "...",
> "failed": true,
> "subtests": [{
> "test_name": "test_global_funcs",
> "subtest_name": "global_func16",
> "test_number": 223,
> "subtest_number": 16,
> "message": "...",
> "is_subtest": true,
> "failed": true
> }
> ]
> }
> ]
> }
>
> > In term of logical structure and maybe extensibility, this is more appropriate,
> > in term of pragmatism maybe less.
> >
> > I don't have strong opinions and can see benefit for both.
>
> idk, I don't have a strong opinion either.
me neither, flatter struct would be simple to work with either with jq
or hacky grepping, so I guess the question would be how much do we
lose by using flatter structure?
>
> > [...]
