From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C8BD20FA86 for ; Wed, 7 May 2025 06:52:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746600756; cv=none; b=RRYFy40h0Z7YHo/nsWLr9C7YYGusQ+PIIX0LKQlXD+aL/pLBTG+lzDUgTgj4ybICnVJ924sJeBNPDKT7fKtWbfb3lugllzaa9vvwfsaUWPlGLbby/j1ggRSNLCRuwLWEpLYebY+Xt04YNKOYv+5g/PtLkUzqamZg4xra/8CQE24= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746600756; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D0H0rrGhOuGL3TqEJF6V0gebk1tLBIWYmCN6MN/AV+4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YUNEM1lmnp+C+QaUvImhi6WmiS+2/drhU5VA3sLfC62s/g3sN2tXGub48HdsUn2sMCmU2yxQ2s2NQ7vTD3LUTRgNkrjTN7DlN5uyfR5rxI/wjrBLLE//NLPyLL/gizNh5h5K+A60Gk9zYsXwCAr9Tjepmv/sqLjHlWdSR73v4tE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=BKES1O+y; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=ZV4vxU+2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="BKES1O+y"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ZV4vxU+2" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.phl.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667FE11400FA; Wed, 7 May 2025 02:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 07 May 2025 02:52:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1746600753; x=1746687153; bh=mPJAD2VY7I J4P4woyqR1bdb8u/cyKjB36PLf4Xv7sDk=; b=BKES1O+yhH0PIFG9Beui+YwHmV m/sH5L0FaHM5GmaL26giTwsrImGiEvyIdmnXJROjzF9ZDvholORybfiS/yJn8iK6 WKCYYnyrw1TMPOHaHP4TvRW3pGB5vjsmqXtGesZFC0ntc6rNkxPI++/owsGVZ7nU y7rLZuAG8AouzNbi0L52OSpgSe4N6WnPo6CRqfp53VgENVUCYw97bo8crcH28w8V a/ITnpNdx2dJjGGtEPvahvY5dHaXV1c3Byu8qkpemRzXfryxc0ZlNgDkQqdrs0f5 64T3RmbKV/sKie+jlXncqw1qztlg/RknRV1VPzwh+4fz7lvN63YXjcG8gxCQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1746600753; x=1746687153; bh=mPJAD2VY7IJ4P4woyqR1bdb8u/cyKjB36PL f4Xv7sDk=; b=ZV4vxU+2AP233mSxUprldUWrj6zM0Q3cy8jwcEJdq+N9bSosYYW FPGej3l8Np9iIDJlQcR3RG0Kf0NKuTaKEWvXYb1/0+sEIpvNQYEiD2vEJ3CudfeR sF6sGsKtmdPKccZ7h2SiLNdljWg7IpXc/g6dRMZUwDUnZxmNkC5c2EopGOLf2x15 MmNv5yhbkb9Pj0d65upup65VDHD7jpkt8daF3sHdy4sJ6TwkpDG+3sHIaBAwO4A4 8CCzx7sSN+ly1HSCJXEjVTZqY70cQFYl+d/s5nhu7rcO8SqN478F/icAT+Ahl3yq HZzwKcRBRKQPcXhvG2EgkzzXHFlIUcyrd8Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddvkeeiudelucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddt vdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrd himheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekkeffhfeitdeludeigfejtdetvdelvdduhefg ueegudfghfeukefhjedvkedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpe hmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepvddpmhhouggv pehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgh dprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougduvdefsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 7 May 2025 02:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id ebcf4e61 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Wed, 7 May 2025 06:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 08:52:25 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Phillip Wood Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] t: fix cases where output breaks TAP format Message-ID: References: <20250506-pks-meson-tap-v1-0-5aaab2942a4c@pks.im> <20250506-pks-meson-tap-v1-1-5aaab2942a4c@pks.im> <49ef0fc1-39f1-4771-88e4-440e0924478f@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49ef0fc1-39f1-4771-88e4-440e0924478f@gmail.com> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 02:17:09PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > Hi Patrick > > On 06/05/2025 11:59, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > The TAP format does not allow arbitrary output outside of a specific > > test case. If a test suite wants to print any such diagnostic output, > > then this output has to be prefixed with "#" to mark it accordingly. > > A bunch of our tests generate output outside of `test_expect_*` > > testcases anyway without such a mark, which breaks strict TAP parsers. > > > > Upon further inspection, all of the output generated by such tests is > > rather uninteresting. Refactor them so that we don't break the TAP > > format. > > I think there is an argument that these tests are broken and we should be > running these commands inside test_expect_success(). However this patch > doesn't make things substantially worse because although we lose the output > from test_create_repo that probably isn't going to matter. The changes to > the highlighting prereq look fine too. Yeah, agreed, our modern style when writing tests should always use `test_expect_success()` indeed. So an alternative to this commit would thus be to use `test_expect_success()` as you propose. Let me know your preference, I'm happy to adapt if you think this is preferable. Patrick