From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083A7C0218F for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEFB3C7B25 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:51:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A293C6609 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:51:05 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-2.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7A4563B714 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:51:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C5C51F38D; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:51:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1738324263; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dzk0oXlVAiSgZaXN4KAk7S38uoIUZld15I0LodQt26Y=; b=RdxYcEU/DYWrMJyDDef6pGJiD+Fm9Ynl1jP5Awlk8elWyeBgMEvN0nTfOK7bG7gxcK+2wD fUTzZthsorlOCLZYvCQq7AtmBAdK9ihj9VOOX7OkHjIecDlzFzQGieaNo17u3nzdGTP1JE PSw+RE2JP0xYizLjnpOaL9IzGgeDOb0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1738324263; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dzk0oXlVAiSgZaXN4KAk7S38uoIUZld15I0LodQt26Y=; b=HQns3gUFJIKQx1Lo3LzJlGnzyxMEAfumCP/QtdGeGuyg6LrV2vZTZjI+v5sSNDwdQILn6L NPO328F0BD1MZnBg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1738324263; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dzk0oXlVAiSgZaXN4KAk7S38uoIUZld15I0LodQt26Y=; b=RdxYcEU/DYWrMJyDDef6pGJiD+Fm9Ynl1jP5Awlk8elWyeBgMEvN0nTfOK7bG7gxcK+2wD fUTzZthsorlOCLZYvCQq7AtmBAdK9ihj9VOOX7OkHjIecDlzFzQGieaNo17u3nzdGTP1JE PSw+RE2JP0xYizLjnpOaL9IzGgeDOb0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1738324263; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dzk0oXlVAiSgZaXN4KAk7S38uoIUZld15I0LodQt26Y=; b=HQns3gUFJIKQx1Lo3LzJlGnzyxMEAfumCP/QtdGeGuyg6LrV2vZTZjI+v5sSNDwdQILn6L NPO328F0BD1MZnBg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D610E133A6; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:51:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id 4jymMSa5nGcFSAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:51:02 +0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:50:46 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20250131115046.GA1116925@pevik> References: <20250131091535.GB1090737@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.50 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.cz:replyto]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC] Remove [Description] subtitle from docparse X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > Can we remove [Description] part from docparse documentation in tests? > > This is transformed into "Description" subtitle in resulted html/pdf. > > 1) It's not really needed (it's obvious that it's a description of the test) > > 2) Sometimes it's missing (inconsistency). > That part can be fixed with something as: > diff --git a/metadata/metaparse.c b/metadata/metaparse.c > index 2b96149dc..422604a2c 100644 > --- a/metadata/metaparse.c > +++ b/metadata/metaparse.c > @@ -852,6 +852,14 @@ static struct data_node *parse_file(const char *fname) > if (data_node_array_len(doc)) { > data_node_hash_add(res, "doc", doc); > + > + char *str = doc->array.array[0]->string.val; > + > + if (!strstr("[Description]", str)) { > + fprintf(stderr, "%s: Missing [Description] in doc comment!\n", fname); > + exit(1); > + } > + > found = 1; > } else { > data_node_free(doc); Sure, that could work as well. > > I would keep other subtitles (e.g. [Algorithm]), just remove the first one. > I find it a bit inconsistent if we do it this way, but I guess either > way is fine. The reason why suggested to remove it is that I don't see much information value in "Description" title. "Algorithm" has at least little bit of information value. Besides these two we have only: * [Prerequisites] (testcases/kernel/mem/ksm/ksm07.c) * [Race Description] (testcases/kernel/syscalls/fork/fork13.c) Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp