From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6166CC432BE for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DB66105A for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231553AbhHKUyB (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:54:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34796 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229589AbhHKUyA (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:54:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 274B1C061765 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id s22-20020a17090a1c16b0290177caeba067so11723010pjs.0 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:53:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4jEgkWCU9y4Rnu8kdS6birld0TkC6w5rnKBfpu8sNtc=; b=MuRdiMj2Ejckmk8D9amHgFMWIJInp4iTZhKV3yYTIPChZNbZGMRUmJbYW6smLGMlIz Q59DqgBwPLorE5uch8gp+1qvvpwG9hQ+Xp7ihF6AgSsfedTnv94o6aa/cuaFKtPVrtQs 1PZoCi3Ts6+HM9AtvQbPLFFLkX80GaMGYm/nrhZn7tTeoQGdRK87EagdE1nSQonH91jE q/XpTetEVA/W5UC8w/EeMofZbNeKS3kf9RbFMwFZsfgEXNrRE+h1IF43n/El75/HvM0/ 53yiJrp+VAFWv5lCpb2UgSAgoGbY6wmC8t2ZVDLDdxOUDh0Oln21C5GAYolIb/tCbGrv buRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4jEgkWCU9y4Rnu8kdS6birld0TkC6w5rnKBfpu8sNtc=; b=fBJPh4odK+yihhk8Wch/wZT+SMlViuFBGqfSNhoeZKS5w/rc85it3Dc0AvaO0agQsE JGHIwIhB6tzIPhp0umBod1b7g5+Z+OCA5/vtDNCq64O+IZJMl/oXepomrc5/b3eZ1bHF N0B85AG+00EKX56y79msdmNvUmoJ6kzj6+VorH/vq1UWWtWkruFSTY2zjJsikmVt86ad 8YYN0TQUJgvSKyQFNMqpVYQb38wLH+UgmXCij9EnzCimLzRRD2PA9Y0ZnPz2MMtB1Ddg UMlL87Y+tXbOlZ0p3SVB/dVZDeN63N7A0zbSSPRFHfGNjbbKMsiukfbe0N14jdcBAvBu D4lA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vD3/gAqebrhBPgg7ZWUkvZl75FTB04lk06cDNfbvjbzkT1EcT 7RHhmxpH7nQed/rFAhkFruue8NtMnCltjENGhGgV4w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzbB7mUtizyZfWEGecSDx8ABVAm/e76AFOlfpCjEWbKGiQaOmZWoZ3C6p7B77SQDOQ8EEP8uja+JWsSDCR+V8Q= X-Received: by 2002:a63:f62:: with SMTP id 34mr582085pgp.159.1628715215272; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:53:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Brendan Higgins Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:53:24 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC - kernel test result specification (KTAP) To: Rae Moar Cc: David Gow , Tim.Bird@sony.com, shuah@kernel.org, Daniel Latypov , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:25 PM Rae Moar wrote: > > We are looking to further standardise the output format used by kernel > test frameworks like kselftest and KUnit. Thus far we have used the > TAP (Test Anything Protocol) specification, but it has been extended > in many different ways, so we would like to agree on a common "Kernel > TAP" (KTAP) format to resolve these differences. Thus, below is a > draft of a specification of KTAP. Note that this specification is > largely based on the current format of test results for KUnit tests. > > Additionally, this specification was heavily inspired by the KTAP > specification draft by Tim Bird > (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CY4PR13MB1175B804E31E502221BC8163FD830@CY4PR13MB1175.namprd13.prod.outlook.com/T/). > However, there are some notable differences to his specification. One > such difference is the format of nested tests is more fully specified > in the following specification. However, they are specified in a way > which may not be compatible with many kselftest nested tests. Thanks for putting this together, Rae! I would definitely like to see us moving forward with standardizing fully on the KTAP spec. I am surprised to not yet see any comments here. I was thinking that this might make a good BoF topic at LPC, but I guess that depends on how interested people are in this topic.