2022-03-17 04:06:13

by Frank Rowand

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

From: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>

KTAP Specification: Change code-block directives to straightforward
literal blocks since the blocks do not contain code.

Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 18 ++++++++----------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
index 37b5dc61bfb8..b9a57ceddd4f 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
@@ -115,34 +115,32 @@ The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
separator.

-Example result lines include:
-
-.. code-block:: none
+Example result lines include::

ok 1 test_case_name

The test "test_case_name" passed.

-.. code-block:: none
+::

not ok 1 test_case_name

The test "test_case_name" failed.

-.. code-block:: none
+::

ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable

The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
unavailable".

-.. code-block:: none
+::

not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds

The test "test" timed out, with diagnostic data "30 seconds".

-.. code-block:: none
+::

ok 5 check return code # rcode=0

@@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ allowed to be either indented or not indented.

An example of a test with two nested subtests:

-.. code-block:: none
+::

KTAP version 1
1..1
@@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ An example of a test with two nested subtests:

An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:

-.. code-block:: none
+::

KTAP version 1
1..2
@@ -250,7 +248,7 @@ nested version line, uses a line of the form

Example KTAP output
--------------------
-.. code-block:: none
+::

KTAP version 1
1..1
--
Frank Rowand <[email protected]>


2022-03-17 09:25:47

by David Gow

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>
> KTAP Specification: Change code-block directives to straightforward
> literal blocks since the blocks do not contain code.
>
> Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
> ---

This looks good to me.

I'd personally rather push this through independently of the KTAP 2.0
spec updates, as it's really just a minor formatting change to the
spec, and it has no impact on the actual KTAP format.

So, if we can accept this independently, that'd be swell.

Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>

Cheers,
-- David


> Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 18 ++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> index 37b5dc61bfb8..b9a57ceddd4f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> @@ -115,34 +115,32 @@ The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
> directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
> separator.
>
> -Example result lines include:
> -
> -.. code-block:: none
> +Example result lines include::
>
> ok 1 test_case_name
>
> The test "test_case_name" passed.
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
> not ok 1 test_case_name
>
> The test "test_case_name" failed.
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
> ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable
>
> The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
> unavailable".
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
> not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds
>
> The test "test" timed out, with diagnostic data "30 seconds".
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
> ok 5 check return code # rcode=0
>
> @@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ allowed to be either indented or not indented.
>
> An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
> KTAP version 1
> 1..1
> @@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>
> An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
> KTAP version 1
> 1..2
> @@ -250,7 +248,7 @@ nested version line, uses a line of the form
>
> Example KTAP output
> --------------------
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
> KTAP version 1
> 1..1
> --
> Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>


Attachments:
smime.p7s (3.91 kB)
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

2022-04-23 00:03:38

by Frank Rowand

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

Hi Jon,

On 3/17/22 03:43, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>
>> KTAP Specification: Change code-block directives to straightforward
>> literal blocks since the blocks do not contain code.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>> ---
>
> This looks good to me.
>
> I'd personally rather push this through independently of the KTAP 2.0
> spec updates, as it's really just a minor formatting change to the
> spec, and it has no impact on the actual KTAP format.
>
> So, if we can accept this independently, that'd be swell.
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>

I got distracted with other tasks, just now returning to this.

There has been no other comment in the last month, so I think it
is fair to go ahead and ask you to pull this patch.

Can you pull just this patch (patch 2/2) or would you prefer that
I do a version 2 which does not contain patch 1/2?

-Frank

>
> Cheers,
> -- David
>
>
>> Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 18 ++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> index 37b5dc61bfb8..b9a57ceddd4f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> @@ -115,34 +115,32 @@ The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
>> directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
>> separator.
>>
>> -Example result lines include:
>> -
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +Example result lines include::
>>
>> ok 1 test_case_name
>>
>> The test "test_case_name" passed.
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>> not ok 1 test_case_name
>>
>> The test "test_case_name" failed.
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>> ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable
>>
>> The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
>> unavailable".
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>> not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds
>>
>> The test "test" timed out, with diagnostic data "30 seconds".
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>> ok 5 check return code # rcode=0
>>
>> @@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ allowed to be either indented or not indented.
>>
>> An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>> KTAP version 1
>> 1..1
>> @@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>>
>> An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>> KTAP version 1
>> 1..2
>> @@ -250,7 +248,7 @@ nested version line, uses a line of the form
>>
>> Example KTAP output
>> --------------------
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>> KTAP version 1
>> 1..1
>> --
>> Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>

2022-05-01 04:21:20

by Jonathan Corbet

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

Frank Rowand <[email protected]> writes:

> Hi Jon,

> I got distracted with other tasks, just now returning to this.
>
> There has been no other comment in the last month, so I think it
> is fair to go ahead and ask you to pull this patch.
>
> Can you pull just this patch (patch 2/2) or would you prefer that
> I do a version 2 which does not contain patch 1/2?

I've applied it, thanks.

jon