Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220204203248.2981902-1-frowand.list@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220204203248.2981902-1-frowand.list@gmail.com>
From:   David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Feb 2022 07:13:04 +0800
Message-ID: <CABVgOS=JUxV6PRUZvTQhisSP+p34+K9Z6yT7HkXu6qeqtak1tw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Documentation: dev-tools: clarify KTAP specification wording
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>,
        "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Rae Moar <rmr167@gmail.com>,
        Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>, kernelci@groups.io,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 4:32 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>
> Clarify some confusing phrasing.

Thanks for this! A few comments below:

>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> ---
>
> One item that may result in bikeshedding is that I added the spec
> version to the title line.

This is fine by me.

>
>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> index 878530cb9c27..3b7a26816930 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
>  .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> -========================================
> -The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP)
> -========================================
> +===================================================
> +The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 1
> +===================================================
>
>  TAP, or the Test Anything Protocol is a format for specifying test results used
>  by a number of projects. It's website and specification are found at this `link
> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ starting with another KTAP version line and test plan, and end with the overall
>  result. If one of the subtests fail, for example, the parent test should also
>  fail.
>
> -Additionally, all result lines in a subtest should be indented. One level of
> +Additionally, all lines in a subtest should be indented. One level of

The original reason for this is to accommodate "unknown" lines which
were not generated by the test itself (e.g, a KASAN report or BUG or
something). These are awkward, as sometimes they're a useful thing to
have as part of the test result, and sometimes they're unrelated spam.
(Additionally, I think kselftest will indent these, as it indents the
full results in a separate pass afterwards, but KUnit won't, as the
level of nesting is done during printing.)

Personally, I'd rather leave this as is, or perhaps call out "unknown"
lines explicitly, e.g:
Additionally, all lines in a subtest (except for 'unknown' lines)
should be indented...

Thoughts?

>  indentation is two spaces: "  ". The indentation should begin at the version
>  line and should end before the parent test's result line.
>
> @@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ Major differences between TAP and KTAP
>  --------------------------------------
>
>  Note the major differences between the TAP and KTAP specification:
> -- yaml and json are not recommended in diagnostic messages
> -- TODO directive not recognized
> +- yaml and json are not recommended in KTAP diagnostic messages
> +- TODO directive not recognized in KTAP
>  - KTAP allows for an arbitrary number of tests to be nested
>

Looks good here, cheers.


>  The TAP14 specification does permit nested tests, but instead of using another
> --
> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>