On 5/12/22 10:25, Daniel Latypov wrote: > 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.f That is a good observation. I nearly always have the prefix timestamp on my console output, and thus remove the timestamp with a regex when processing the data. -Frank > 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
