In the middle of the "RFC - kernel test result specification (KTAP)" thread, started in August 2021, Tim Bird made a suggestion to allow a prefix to the KTAP data format: > Just as a side note, in some Fuego tests, it was very useful to include an identifier > in thethe prefix nested tests. The output looked like this: > > TAP version 13 > 1..2 > [batch_id 4] TAP version 13 > [batch_id 4] 1..2 > [batch_id 4] ok 1 - cyclictest with 1000 cycles > [batch_id 4] # problem setting CLOCK_REALTIME > [batch_id 4] not ok 2 - cyclictest with CLOCK_REALTIME > not ok 1 - check realtime > [batch_id 4] TAP version 13 > [batch_id 4] 1..1 > [batch_id 4] ok 1 - IOZone read/write 4k blocks > ok 2 - check I/O performance > > Can I propose that the prefix not be fixed by the spec, but that the spec indicates that > whatever the prefix is on the TAP version line, that prefix must be used with the output for > all lines from the test (with the exception of unknown lines)? The thread was discussing many other items, but this is the one that I want to focus on in this new RFC thread. Tim's original email was: https://lore.kernel.org/r/BYAPR13MB2503A4B79074D8ED5579345DFDCB9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx There was one reply to this that commented on Tim's suggestion (and also many other items in the thread) at: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202108301226.800F3D6D4@keescook > Oh, interesting. This would also allow parallel (unique) test execution > to be parsable. That sounds workable. (Again, this needs LAVA patching > again...) I found Tim's original suggestion to be useful, so I have come up with two possible ways to modify the KTAP specification to implement what Tim was thinking about. I would not be surprised if someone else has a better suggestion than mine, but I will reply to this email with my two alternatives to start a discussion. My alternatives are not in the form of patches, but if discussion leads to a good result then I will create a patch for review. -Frank
