On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:30:45AM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote: > Agreed. You only need machine-parsable data if you expect the CI > system to do something more with the data than just present it. > What that would be, that would be common for all tests (or at least > many test), is unclear. Maybe there are patterns in the diagnostic > data that could lead to higher-level analysis, or even automated > fixes, that don't become apparent if the data is unstructured. But > it's hard to know until you have lots of data. I think just getting > the other things consistent is a good priority right now. Yeah. I think the main place for this is performance analysis, but I think that's a separate system entirely. TAP is really strictly yes/no, where as performance analysis a whole other thing. The only other thing I can think of is some kind of feature analysis, but that would be built out of the standard yes/no output. i.e. if I create a test that checks for specific security mitigation features (*cough*LKDTM*cough*), having a dashboard that shows features down one axis and architectures and/or kernel versions on other axes, then I get a pretty picture. But it's still being built out of the yes/no info. *shrug* I think diagnostic should be expressly non-machine-oriented. -- Kees Cook
