linux-kselftest.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
	Tim.Bird@sony.com, shuah@kernel.org,
	Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
	kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC - kernel test result specification (KTAP)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:53:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g44x9i2KfuJTfRpd6doqsLEbEZS0Gj=e4DvPU8Z-L4ga1Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+GJov6tdjvY9x12JsJT14qn6c7NViJxqaJk+r-K1YJzPggFDQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:25 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> 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.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-11 20:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-10 23:25 RFC - kernel test result specification (KTAP) Rae Moar
2021-08-11 20:53 ` Brendan Higgins [this message]
2021-08-28  8:20 ` Kees Cook
2021-08-30 17:34   ` Brendan Higgins
2021-08-30 19:26     ` Kees Cook
2021-08-30 17:48   ` Tim.Bird
2021-08-30 19:58     ` Kees Cook
2021-08-30 22:04       ` Tim.Bird
2021-08-31  7:46         ` David Gow
2021-09-01 12:01         ` Mark Brown
2021-08-30 22:21       ` Tim.Bird
2022-02-04  2:44       ` Frank Rowand
2021-08-30 23:39   ` David Gow
2021-08-31  2:14   ` Rae Moar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAFd5g44x9i2KfuJTfRpd6doqsLEbEZS0Gj=e4DvPU8Z-L4ga1Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=brendanhiggins@google.com \
    --cc=Tim.Bird@sony.com \
    --cc=davidgow@google.com \
    --cc=dlatypov@google.com \
    --cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rmoar@google.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).