On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:17PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:37 PM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > (It also might be a little tricky with the current implementation to > > > produce the test plan, as the parameters come from a generator, and I > > > don't think there's a way of getting the number of parameters ahead of > > > time. That's a problem with the sub-subtest model, too, though at > > > least there it's a little more isolated from other tests.) > > > > The whole point of generators, as I envisage it, is to also provide the > > ability for varying parameters dependent on e.g. environment, > > configuration, number of CPUs, etc. The current array-based generator is > > the simplest possible use-case. > > > > However, we *can* require generators generate a deterministic number of > > parameters when called multiple times on the same system. > > I think this is a reasonable compromise, though it's not actually > essential. As I understand the TAP spec, the test plan is actually > optional (and/or can be at the end of the sequence of tests), though > kunit_tool currently only supports having it at the beginning (which > is strongly preferred by the spec anyway). I think we could get away > with having it at the bottom of the subtest results though, which > would save having to run the generator twice, when subtest support is > added to kunit_tool. I can't find this in the TAP spec, where should I look? Perhaps we shouldn't venture too far off the beaten path, given we might not be the only ones that want to parse this output. > > To that end, I propose a v7 (below) that takes care of getting number of > > parameters (and also displays descriptions for each parameter where > > available). > > > > Now it is up to you how you want to turn the output from diagnostic > > lines into something TAP compliant, because now we have the number of > > parameters and can turn it into a subsubtest. But I think kunit-tool > > doesn't understand subsubtests yet, so I suggest we take these patches, > > and then somebody can prepare kunit-tool. > > > > This sounds good to me. The only thing I'm not sure about is the > format of the parameter description: thus far test names be valid C > identifier names, due to the fact they're named after the test > function. I don't think there's a fundamental reason parameters (and > hence, potentially, subsubtests) need to follow that convention as > well, but it does look a bit odd. Equally, the square brackets around > the description shouldn't be necessary according to the TAP spec, but > do seem to make things a little more readable, particuarly with the > names in the ext4 inode test. I'm not too worried about either of > those, though: I'm sure it'll look fine once I've got used to it. The parameter description doesn't need to be a C identifier. At least that's what I could immediately glean from TAP v13 spec (I'm looking here: https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html and see e.g. "ok 1 - Input file opened" ...). [...] > > > In any case, I'm happy to leave the final decision here to Arpitha and > > > Marco, so long as we don't actually violate the TAP/KTAP spec and > > > kunit_tool is able to read at least the top-level result. My > > > preference is still to go either with the "# [test_case->name]: > > > [ok|not ok] [index] - param-[index]", or to get rid of the > > > per-parameter results entirely for now (or just print out a diagnostic > > > message on failure). In any case, it's a decision we can revisit once > > > we have support for named parameters, better tooling, or a better idea > > > of how people are actually using this. > > > > Right, so I think we'll be in a better place if we implement: 1) > > parameter to description conversion support, 2) counting parameters. So > > I decided to see what it looks like, and it wasn't too bad. I just don't > > know how you want to fix kunit-tool to make these non-diagnostic lines > > and not complain, but as I said, it'd be good to not block these > > patches. > > Yup, I tried this v7, and it looks good to me. The kunit_tool work > will probably be a touch more involved, so I definitely don't want to > hold up supporting this on that. > > My only thoughts on the v7 patch are: > - I don't think we actually need the parameter count yet (or perhaps > ever if we go with subtests as planned), so I be okay with getting rid > of that. As noted above, perhaps we should keep it for compatibility with other parsers and CI systems we don't have much control over. It'd be a shame if 99% of KUnit output can be parsed by some partially compliant parser, yet this would break it. > - It'd be a possibility to get rid of the square brackets from the > output, and if we still want them, make them part of the test itself: > if this were TAP formatted, those brackets would be part of the > subsubtest name. I don't mind. It's just that we can't prescribe a format, and as seen below the descriptions include characters -<>=,. which can be confusing. But perhaps you're right, so let's remove them. But as noted, TAP doesn't seem to care. So let's remove them. [...] > > I hope this is a reasonable compromise for now. > > Yeah: this seems like a great compromise until kunit_tool is improved. Thank you! -- Marco
