> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brendan Higgins
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:49 PM Bird, Tim <Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brendan Higgins
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:25 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2/7/20 10:58 AM, Alan Maguire wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > > > index 9242f93..aec607f 100644
> > > > > --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > > > +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > > > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > +#include "debugfs.h"
> > > > > #include "string-stream.h"
> > > > > #include "try-catch-impl.h"
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -28,73 +29,91 @@ static void kunit_print_tap_version(void)
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -static size_t kunit_test_cases_len(struct kunit_case *test_cases)
> > > > > +size_t kunit_suite_num_test_cases(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct kunit_case *test_case;
> > > > > size_t len = 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > - for (test_case = test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++)
> > > > > + kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
> > > > > len++;
> > > > >
> > > > > return len;
> > > > > }
> > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_suite_num_test_cases);
> > > > >
> > > > > static void kunit_print_subtest_start(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > > > > {
> > > > > kunit_print_tap_version();
> > > > > - pr_info("\t# Subtest: %s\n", suite->name);
> > > > > - pr_info("\t1..%zd\n", kunit_test_cases_len(suite->test_cases));
> > > > > + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, suite, "# Subtest: %s", suite->name);
> > > > > + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, suite, "1..%zd",
> > > > > + kunit_suite_num_test_cases(suite));
> > > >
> > > > The subtest 'is a TAP stream indented 4 spaces'. (So the old code was
> > > > also incorrect since it indented with a tab.)
> > >
> > > Whoops.
> > >
> > > I agree that fixing tabs to spaces is probably the easiest thing to do
> > > here; nevertheless, I think this might be a good time to talk about
> > > other deviations from the spec and what to do about it. This might
> > > also be a good time to bring up Tim's comment at LPC last year about
> > > forking TAP. Arguably I already have given that TAP14 is still under
> > > review and is consequently subject to change.
> > >
> > > Additionally, the way I report expectation/assertion failures are my
> > > own extension to the TAP spec. I did this because at the time I wasn't
> > > ready to open the can of worms that was adding a YAML serializer to
> > > the Linux kernel; I mentioned adding a YAML serializer at LPC and
> > > people didn't seem super thrilled with the idea.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about writing YAML or interpreting
> > YAML. You don't need a serializer to write YAML. It can be done
> > with straight text output. I guess it depends on the scope of what you
> > envision. Even if you want to do more than trivial structured output,
> > I don't think you'll need a full serializer. (IOW, I think you could sneak
> > something in and just call it a test output formatter. Just don't call it YAML
> > and most people won't notice. :-)
>
> Yeah, for the first one or two things just printing things out
> directly is probably fine, and yes, I could have just snuck it in, but
> at the time it wasn't a hindrance for me to ask what people wanted: I
> had already worked around it.
>
> In any case, I was just explaining part of why I did expectations and
> assertion failures the way that I did.
>
> > >
> > > Further both the TAP implementation here as well as what is in
> > > kselftest have arbitrary kernel output mixed in with TAP output, which
> > > seems to be a further deviation from the spec.
> > Well that's a different kettle of worms, and really argues for staying
> > with something that is strictly line-based.
> >
> > >
> > > In an effort to do this, and so that at the very least I could
> > > document what I have done here, I have been looking into getting a
> > > copy of TAP into the kernel. Unfortunately, TAP appears to have some
> > > licensing issues. TAP says that it can be used/modified "under the
> > > same terms as Perl itself" and then provides a dead link. I filed a
> > > pull request to update the licence to the Perl Artistic Licence 1.0
> > > since I believe that is what they are referencing; however, I have not
> > > heard back from them yet.
> >
> > When you say "getting a copy of TAP into the kernel", I presume you mean
> > an existing implementation to produce TAP output? Or are you talking about
> > a TAP interpreter? I'm not sure the former needs to use an existing implementation.
>
> Sorry, that wasn't clear. I meant: get a copy of the TAP spec itself
> into the kernel documentation. KUnit already has an implementation.
Ah. OK. Thanks.
>
> > I previously volunteered (in Lisbon) to write up the TAP deviations,
> > and never got around to it. Sorry about that. I can try to work on it now if
> > people are still interested.
>
> I think that would be useful. I would do it, but, as I mentioned,
> there are licensing issues with the TAP spec. I am trying to resolve
> those issues, and am currently waiting to hear back from somebody from
> TAP.
If that drags on at all, I'd be happy to write up some docs from scratch.
Since we have deviations from TAP, and I was supposed to write up those
deviations anyway, it might be worthwhile to combine those two actions.
Also, a good chunk of the spec examples are spent on the YAML stuff,
which we currently don't support.
We can reference the official spec of course. I think I suggested we probably
need to fork it and define our own KTAP anyway (with an eye towards staying
compatible with external parsers).
It *is* a bit weird that their licensing is unclear. I get the feeling, though, that
the project is very much on people's backburner. (Mine included, unfortunately.)
-- Tim
