Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kselftest: runner: fix TAP output for skipped tests | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:02:37 -0600 |
| |
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
| |