On 8/1/24 02:42, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
On 7/31/24 9:57 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 7/31/24 07:39, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
Don't print that 88 sub-tests are going to be executed, but then skip.
This is against TAP compliance. Instead check pre-requisites first
before printing total number of tests.
Does TAP clearly mention this?
Yes from https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html
Skipping everything
This listing shows that the entire listing is a skip. No tests were run.
TAP version 13
1..0 # skip because English-to-French translator isn't installed
I don't see how this is applicable to the current scenario. The user
needs to have root privilege to run the test.
It is important to mention how many tests could have been run.
As mentioned before, this information is important for users and testers.
I would like to see this information in the output.
We can see above that we need to print 1..0 and skip without printing the
total number of tests to be executed as they are going to be skipped.
Old non-tap compliant output:
TAP version 13
1..88
ok 2 # SKIP all tests require euid == 0
# Planned tests != run tests (88 != 1)>>> # Totals: pass:0 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:1 error:0
New and correct output:
TAP version 13
1..0 # SKIP all tests require euid == 0
The problem is that this new output doesn't show how many tests
are in this test suite that could be run.
I am not use if this is better for communicating coverage information
even if meets the TAP compliance.
I think the number of tests represents the number of planned tests. If we
don't plan to run X number of tests, we shouldn't print it.
88 tests are planned to be run except for the fact the first check
failed.
Planned tests could not be run because of user privileges. So these
tests are all skips because of unmet dependencies.
So the a good report would show that 88 tests could have been run. You
can meet the specification and still make it work for us. When we
adapt TAP 13 we didn't require 100% compliance.
There are cases where you can comply and still provide how many test
could be run.
I think you are applying the spec strictly thereby removing useful
information from the report.
Can you tell me what would fail because of this "non-compliance"?
thanks,
-- Shuah
