Re: [KTAP V2 PATCH] ktap_v2: add skip test result

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>]

On 3/11/23 21:52, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 3/10/23 16:20, Rae Moar wrote:
>> Add the test result "skip" to KTAP version 2 as an alternative way to
>> indicate a test was skipped.
>>
>> The current spec uses the "#SKIP" directive to indicate that a test was
>> skipped. However, the "#SKIP" directive is not always evident when quickly
>> skimming through KTAP results.
>>
>> The "skip" result would provide an alternative that could make it clearer
>> that a test has not successfully passed because it was skipped.
>>
>> Before:
>>
>>  KTAP version 1
>>  1..1
>>    KTAP version 1
>>    1..2
>>    ok 1 case_1
>>    ok 2 case_2 #SKIP
>>  ok 1 suite
>>
>> After:
>>
>>  KTAP version 2
>>  1..1
>>    KTAP version 2
>>    1..2
>>    ok 1 case_1
>>    skip 2 case_2
>>  ok 1 suite
>>
>> Here is a link to a version of the KUnit parser that is able to parse
>> the skip test result for KTAP version 2. Note this parser is still able
>> to parse the "#SKIP" directive.
>>
>> Link: https://kunit-review.googlesource.com/c/linux/+/5689
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
>> ---> 
>> Note: this patch is based on Frank's ktap_spec_version_2 branch.
>>
>>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> index ff77f4aaa6ef..f48aa00db8f0 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> @@ -74,7 +74,8 @@ They are required and must have the format:
>>  	<result> <number> [<description>][ # [<directive>] [<diagnostic data>]]
>>  
>>  The result can be either "ok", which indicates the test case passed,
>> -or "not ok", which indicates that the test case failed.
>> +"not ok", which indicates that the test case failed, or "skip", which indicates
>> +the test case did not run.
>>  
>>  <number> represents the number of the test being performed. The first test must
>>  have the number 1 and the number then must increase by 1 for each additional
>> @@ -91,12 +92,13 @@ A directive is a keyword that indicates a different outcome for a test other
>>  than passed and failed. The directive is optional, and consists of a single
>>  keyword preceding the diagnostic data. In the event that a parser encounters
>>  a directive it doesn't support, it should fall back to the "ok" / "not ok"
>> -result.
>> +/ "skip" result.
>>  
>>  Currently accepted directives are:
>>  
>> -- "SKIP", which indicates a test was skipped (note the result of the test case
>> -  result line can be either "ok" or "not ok" if the SKIP directive is used)
> 
>> +- "SKIP", which indicates a test was skipped (note this is an alternative to
>> +  the "skip" result type and if the SKIP directive is used, the
>> +  result can be any type - "ok", "not ok", or "skip")
> 
> For the "SKIP" directive, result type of either "ok", or "not ok" reflects the
> current real world usage, which is mixed.  I agree is makes sense to also
> allow the result type of "skip" with the "SKIP directive.
> 

> I think it would be good to deprecate the "SKIP" directive, with a scheduled
> removal in the V3 specification - that would allow plenty of time for test
> parsers to process both V1 and V2 data, before removing processing of V1 data.

Since I wrote that paragraph, I have pondered the process of transition from
V1 to V2, to possibly V3.  It seems to be a complex enough issue that I will
start a different email thread to gather thoughts, issues, and possible
directions.

-Frank

> 
> If so, the deprecation plan should be documented.
> 
>>  - "TODO", which indicates that a test is not expected to pass at the moment,
>>    e.g. because the feature it is testing is known to be broken. While this>    directive is inherited from TAP, its use in the kernel is discouraged.
>> @@ -110,7 +112,7 @@ Currently accepted directives are:
>>  
>>  The diagnostic data is a plain-text field which contains any additional details
>>  about why this result was produced. This is typically an error message for ERROR
>> -or failed tests, or a description of missing dependencies for a SKIP result.
>> +or failed tests, or a description of missing dependencies for a skipped test.
>>  
>>  The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
>>  directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
>> @@ -130,11 +132,18 @@ The test "test_case_name" failed.
>>  
>>  ::
>>  
>> -	ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable
>> +	skip 1 test # necessary dependency unavailable
> 
> Maybe add a note that the "skip" result method is preferred over the below
> "ok ... # SKIP..." example below.
> 
>>  
>> -The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
>> +The test "test" was skipped with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
>>  unavailable".
>>  
>> +::
>> +
>> +	ok 1 test_2 # SKIP this test should not run
>> +
>> +The test "test_2" was skipped with the diagnostic message "this test
>> +should not run".
> 
> Maybe add a deprecation note here.
> 
>> +
>>  ::
>>  
>>  	not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds
>> @@ -225,7 +234,7 @@ An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:
>>  	    not ok 1 test_1
>>  	    ok 2 test_2
>>  	  not ok 1 test_3
>> -	  ok 2 test_4 # SKIP
>> +	  skip 2 test_4
>>  	not ok 1 example_test_1
>>  	ok 2 example_test_2
>>  
>> @@ -262,7 +271,7 @@ Example KTAP output
>>  	  ok 1 example_test_1
>>  	    KTAP version 2
>>  	    1..2
>> -	    ok 1 test_1 # SKIP test_1 skipped
>> +	    skip 1 test_1 # test_1 skipped
>>  	    ok 2 test_2
>>  	  ok 2 example_test_2
>>  	    KTAP version 2
>>
>> base-commit: 906f02e42adfbd5ae70d328ee71656ecb602aaf5
>