lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kselftest: runner: fix TAP output for skipped tests
From
Date
On 6/10/20 11:43 AM, Bird, Tim wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Shuah Khan
>>
>> On 6/10/20 9:44 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> According to the TAP specification, a skipped test must be marked as "ok"
>>> and annotated with the SKIP directive, for example
>>>
>>> ok 23 # skip Insufficient flogiston pressure.
>>> (https://testanything.org/tap-specification.html)
>>>
>>> Fix the runner script to match this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/kselftest/runner.sh | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest/runner.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest/runner.sh
>>> index 676b3a8b114d..f4815cbcd60f 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest/runner.sh
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest/runner.sh
>>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ run_one()
>>> echo "ok $test_num $TEST_HDR_MSG") ||
>>> (rc=$?; \
>>> if [ $rc -eq $skip_rc ]; then \
>>> - echo "not ok $test_num $TEST_HDR_MSG # SKIP"
>>> + echo "ok $test_num $TEST_HDR_MSG # SKIP"
>
> This is a pretty big change, and might break upstream CIs that have come to
> rely on kselftest's existing behavior. I know it's going to break Fuego's parsing
> of results.
>

Thanks for chiming in. We don't want to break CI workflow.

> kselftest has a few conventions that are different from the TAP spec,
> and a few items it does that are extensions to the TAP spec.
> IMHO, the TAP spec got this one wrong, but I could be convinced
> otherwise. But I think we should discuss this among CI users of
> kselftest before making the change.
>
> I started work quite a while ago on an effort to document the
> conventions used by kselftest (particularly where it deviates
> from the TAP spec), but never submitted it.
>
> I'm going to submit what I've got as an RFC now, for discussion,
> even though it's not finished. I'll do that in a separate thread.
>
>
>>> elif [ $rc -eq $timeout_rc ]; then \
>>> echo "#"
>>> echo "not ok $test_num $TEST_HDR_MSG # TIMEOUT"
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. I will pull this in for Linux 5.8-rc2
> Shuah - can you hold off on this until we discuss it?
>

Of course. Thanks for getting my attention before I pulled it in.

thanks,
-- Shuah

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-10 22:02    [W:0.092 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site