Re: [PATCH] kselftest: runner: fix TAP output for skipped tests

[Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>]

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