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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DC4C433EF for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D00A60F36 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:35:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 2D00A60F36 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.linux.it Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CEE3C70E0 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 13:35:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FCD53C7008 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 13:35:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E9F3601385 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 13:35:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA921974 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:35:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1635770140; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DHF11xTEBM7t660+G5vpjlG5I8S0bisSEifRqVohhz8=; b=l5RZKYOr9+4lXgwzxACMFXXoZv084OuXfxrXrQickfrmg+t2UAA7qyxh0f3MYzFjeJxvIu jGTYxBLJM/SabhF8hGvWrJyBpYgb1yT52cL8t1+Y3zY0opceZRZ9R5qGi9PAsMvQ9Y5aoO IqyNUGR5ltlSA8a2K8LGrdKGiIezflA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1635770140; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DHF11xTEBM7t660+G5vpjlG5I8S0bisSEifRqVohhz8=; b=9gs2lz4+bgRHinscukZU5Vr/1mmEVYkzu3wJLz4GuSjGjcmnomiZgM46sV4PdgJkGpjcTM 6Jnf4X/G2M8xBhCA== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.24.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77683A3B81; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:35:40 +0000 (UTC) References: <20211018154800.11013-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <87tuh2poue.fsf@suse.de> <87pmrppj9u.fsf@suse.de> <87h7cwp5x6.fsf@suse.de> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.5; emacs 27.2 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Cyril Hrubis Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 12:20:44 +0000 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87cznkoxyc.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 0/7] docparse improvements X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: rpalethorpe@suse.de Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hello, Cyril Hrubis writes: > Hi! >> > Still working on a prototype based on tree-sitter would take a week or >> > two worth of time and I would like to get the metadata fixed now, so >> > that I can finally move on with runltp-ng. So I would slightly prefer >> > merging the patches for the current solution first, then we can have a >> > look on tree-sitter in the next LTP release cycle. What do you think? >> >> I think there is a small risk >> >> 1. It turns out that with tree-sitter it would make more sense to use a >> different meta-data format. > > What do you have in mind? I do not think that we should dramatically > chante the json structure we do have now. Whatever tree-sitter produces most naturally and requires the least amount of massaging. > >> 2. Someone starts building on the current solution without realising it >> might change >> >> Of course this can be mitigated by saying that the implementation and >> format are subject to change. > > My approach here is to build the runltp-ng as a set of reusable > libraries, one of them would be a parser for the metadata that would > provide interfaces for the common queries. That makes the metadata an > intermediate format that could evolve over time. On the other hand I do > not expect big changes in the metadata format. > >> Note that in general I think it's best (on bigger projects) to have an >> alternative branch for big changes where one needs to "rush" to an >> end-to-end solution. Most likely we need an alternate branch for >> integrating runltp-ng and the executor. > > We can even do this in a separate github repository or whatever works, > but still we have to agree on general direction. > > I still think that the best solution here is to apply this patchset and > put the tree-sitter on TODO. Unlike tree-sitter this is neither big nor > radical change and it would allow us to proceed with other stuff that > has been blocked for several releases at least. As discussed in IRC, I prefer the route of trying either Sparse or Tree-sitter first to produce the metadata. However please go ahead and make the decision. After all once we have better automation it will reduce the burden on reviewers. -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp