On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:26 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 10:00, David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 08:29, Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > A bug was identified where the KTAP below caused an infinite loop: > > > > > > TAP version 13 > > > ok 4 test_case > > > 1..4 > > > > > > The infinite loop was caused by the parser not parsing a test plan > > > if following a test result line. > > > > > > Fix bug to correctly parse test plan and add error if test plan is > > > missing. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for taking a look at this Rae! I tried to take a look myself > but I could not really get a grip on the parsing logic in the time I > had. > > > Thanks for looking into this: I don't think we want to unconditionally > > error if there's no test plan, though. Pretty much no parameterised > > tests include one -- it's not always possible to know how many tests > > there'll be in advance -- so this triggers all of the time. > > > > Maybe we can only include an error if we find a test plan line after > > an existing result, or something? > > Since I reported this bug, I discovered that the example above is in > fact valid TAP: > > > The plan [...] must appear once, whether at the beginning or end of the output. > > From https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html Hi! This brings up an interesting question because the parser has been mainly geared towards parsing KTAP (https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/ktap.html) rather than TAP. (Although we do try to have backwards compatibility with TAP v14 "Subtest" lines) For example, TAP version 13 1..1 TAP version 13 1..1 ok 1 test_case ok 1 test_suite This would be accepted by the parser without error because it is valid KTAP even though it is not valid TAP v13. The scenario above that caused the infinite loop would be incorrect KTAP (which requires the test plan to follow a version line) but correct TAP v13. So do we accept it without error? Ideally, we would parse based on the version given in the version line. Just an interesting thought. Either way, I will remove the error for now as our parameterized tests don't properly produce a test plan, which causes errors. Thanks! -Rae
