On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:34 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 16:23 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > > 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? > > Okay, okay, noone wants to read jq manual, I get it :) guilty ;) > > I assume that current plan is to consume this output by some CI script > (and e.g. provide a foldable list of failed tests/sub-tests in the > final output). So, we should probably use whatever makes more sense > for those scripts. If you and Manu think that flat structure works > best -- so be it. As I said, I don't care. The immediate need is to produce error summary output from this json. If you are a power user of jq and can help us achieve this with nested structure json, that would be great. Code wins.
