Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] kunit: tool: parse KTAP compliant test output

From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
	brendanhiggins@google.com, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
	mauro.chehab@linux.intel.com, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] kunit: tool: parse KTAP compliant test output
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:02:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxpQVWs2RYX_+6FZS8a9-M1GocoMjHNrLBADtkGzxh8mHw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+GJov7N0gU_a2xNkj_ex9EiuGtDq+7k2zVh4CQ259DL-YMA2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:46 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote:
> > - As Daniel mentioned, can we think of a better placeholder name for
> > tests without Subtest lines? One thought is to just leave it as the
> > empty string?
>
> I am definitely open to changing this placeholder name.
>
> The ideas I thought of are: "Test suite", just "Test", or just an
> empty string. "Test" or empty string may be less confusing. What do
> people prefer?

I'd prefer the empty string.

So it would show up as something like
===== (1 subtests) =====
[PASSED] case1
====== suite1 ======

Note: we'll just have to make sure to avoid a leading space (e.g.
we're currently doing message += f' (1 subtest)' )

Daniel