Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+GJov6tdjvY9x12JsJT14qn6c7NViJxqaJk+r-K1YJzPggFDQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+GJov6tdjvY9x12JsJT14qn6c7NViJxqaJk+r-K1YJzPggFDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:53:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g44x9i2KfuJTfRpd6doqsLEbEZS0Gj=e4DvPU8Z-L4ga1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC - kernel test result specification (KTAP)
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

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.