On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:01 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ================================================================================ > #### discussion notes: > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > PRO: minimally invasive to specification. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > CON: > > KTAP does not include any mechanism to describe the value of <prefix string> > to test harnesses and test output processing programs. The test output > processing programs must infer the value of <prefix string> by detecting > the <prefix string> in the "Version lines". > > The detection of a "Version lines" might be a match of the regex: > > "^.*KTAP version 2$" > > This risks falsely detecting a "Version lines", but the risk is small??? Agree this is a risk and also think it's probably small, but it's hard to say. I think the $ anchoring the regex is probably safe enough. As noted earlier, this tracks with what kunit.py already does. That was necessitated by dynamic prefixes such as timestamps, etc. So I think this is probably a fine risk to take. I imagine we could add constraints of prefix string, e.g. must have [] around it, etc. if we want to try and minimize this risk. But I don't know if it's necessarily worth it, given what we know right now. Along those lines, I think I like this approach (Alternative 1) more than Alternative 2/2b. I'm not sure we need a structured way to specify metadata in KTAP yet? The prefix seems like a reasonable candidate, but do others have ideas of other bits of metadata we'd want to be able to declare? Daniel
