Re: [tap] RFC Status?

Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> Sat, 20 September 2014 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fawaka@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B296C1A02D9 for <tap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3aRFG2NGq99d for <tap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 199E21A02D8 for <tap@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h18so945184igc.14 for <tap@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9y1g1e/enLQdp5owHyo5izIq/CFKEn76wbdq/fjBfX4=; b=g3vOC5cj2Y31nRUljVvn4bbkfWyS+f9HU0UWoPVz3NDssTY5T1s8i0rWkfSsSvsmPW YjxVuLYCyG3atQJlOTet14/B3K54A16F07Acx81YXbo0g5LFXkxuQ/adSM8gqMYgD/Zk 0ORdaejdhhEqwFkETX1cD8tzClH+K/w0j5XBoMt2Hurx1Q3TNq1MpZa8u4hA/2d5CKLC 5/8vZJOyJt6m0h4TSbYyJPYlA7zmfY7pI2gfFO8E9MmLtweA4feIwH6bYCTH5MxlCMof nJ8HI1zaYiNdc+OZRWI7OKbapNuOEPd3gMCUKBXsR6s7OKrMwvlU7aRgLCWI3FXBXmfr 39Rg==
X-Received: by 10.50.51.2 with SMTP id g2mr5409250igo.7.1411255343417; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.109.198 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87bnqbwqhe.fsf@renormalist.net>
References: <CAP4gcszybVr5Hw3mg=uTi8tqpA3wEVwo=zf2876RWhy_CmozZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHhgV8jr6ZnsfUkpFC4OL0AwRX-aen7v-7KjcN3e0_19s7steg@mail.gmail.com> <1410980929.82809.YahooMailNeo@web126106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <87bnqbwqhe.fsf@renormalist.net>
From: Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 01:22:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhgV8gny-6ZJuec_83h0C+WbjAMXUA+JqLC6xgZj6FUAO-JTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steffen Schwigon <ss5@renormalist.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134b6e86e942f0503877d20
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tap/MG_q2q9HfuyDUEvxhunq0ecM70g
Cc: "tap@ietf.org" <tap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tap] RFC Status?
X-BeenThere: tap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions <tap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tap/>
List-Post: <mailto:tap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:22:25 -0000

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Steffen Schwigon <ss5@renormalist.net>
wrote:

> Ovid <publiustemp-tapx@yahoo.com> writes:
> > For subtests, they are indented four spaces. Always four spaces.
>
> Bummer! This was an eye-opener for me, in a sense that IMHO with this
> nested TAP we step into a nested hell of context sensitive whitespace
> parsing, which, as additional bonus, isn't human-readable anymore, and,
> as additional additional bonus, already evidently seems to be hard to
> implement.
>

I'd agree the lack of a clear opener is unfortunate. Parsing it requires
one to maintain more state than desirable.


> I might exaggerate here slightly, but seriously, is it really worth?
>
> Which use-case can't live with today's TAP when structuring its tests in
> separate test files, respective TAP streams.
>

I can see the use for it, but it certainly adds complications.

And here I seriously start to panic if that opinion should ever lead to
> deprecating YAMLish, as 1) it much better fits the philosophy of TAP's
> line-based'ness, 2) is easier to generate with line based tools, like in
> a shell-only world, and 3) zillions of test results are already based on
> it for the last 6 years. I'm not exaggerating here.


I wasn't aware of anyone actually outputting YAML. Can you tell us more
about this?

Leon