Re: [tap] RFC Status?

Jonathan Kingston <> Tue, 12 August 2014 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167E81A0774 for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.312
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMahfPv4XyrJ for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CDC61A0820 for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id eb12so7659154oac.3 for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bR6QcxLG1o++PMkPFj+3nv6EoxSBpcL49a652wHzYHc=; b=F006wEEDweSfeozFUEsjr3O4q4CCXWN08ifEwH4UdKBPO1RqisUumHtxyFuL77gp0L yrqupKq3n9nthYQXxstM/3BMlnGUoXDsxI0WKmBGomqGOTo5EbjW/L/NzsO+sMf6j4XW N3g/Tsf8M4eHugTu7EKXfkKd91HMcRBu/xNO3pOhbrg5B31Wqjx/AhL5Yv9WuI2ahhrL f4CQ2tvN01rpRnxCDFNDfpsAMBFqvpPvzZso3nwt1G/lk95Ia3lVffw9FIvj6bVp+L1Q ZGpyROeu5n6keOVfhw9wdYol/dAo3CjNctTENEkxYf3T7ACmXYxojwulpaQROiW0xDFs phsw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id rt8mr5485144obb.80.1407872175546; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:36:15 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: SAg0LMHamkg2cTlkBKX1QDScb0Y
Message-ID: <>
From: Jonathan Kingston <>
To: "Bruno P. Kinoshita" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2de6ee9aa90050073c82c
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tap] RFC Status?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:37:05 -0000

@Bruno I worked on the layout and the rest is on Github where conversations
can be continued for proposals as I didn't really like the site being a
wiki style. To gain any form of authority TAP needs to portray itself much
like any other body where conversations can be held elsewhere.

My plan was to make a repo just for test proposals if you like in the style
of w3c proposals under the TestAnything org:

There is some bits that have been raised on Github which needs some
discussions as realistically people are developing alternatives to TAP
because of its shortcomings. However the JSON formats that have been
developed so far seem to have issues themselves despite being an attractive

I am very much interested in it being an RFC however like the site
maintenance I am lacking a little in time.

On 11 August 2014 21:22, Bruno P. Kinoshita <>

> Hi all,
> Some time ago I started learning about TAP for a Jenkins plugin (TAP
> Plug-in), for use in another plug-in (TestLink Plug-in) and consequently
> had to write a Java API for both plug-ins ( There are some
> users of the TAP plug-in that utilize it for node.js testing, others use
> the yslow plug-in, and others use for Perl or other kind of automation in
> their builds.
> > What's the current state of TAP? Is there still interest in taking this
> to RFC status? I found some previous discussions on the list about nested
> TAP. Did those make it into the specification in any way? If so, where can
> I find examples of correct nested tap results?
> It'd been a while since the last time I visited, but the
> site looks great now! I liked the new layout, kudos to whoever made it.
> I couldn't find some old content in the new site though. In tap4j we
> implement subtests (as in Test::More), like:
>   1..3
>   ok 1 - First test
>       # Subtest: An example subtest
>       1..2
>       ok 1 - This is a subtest
>       ok 2 - So is this
>   ok 2 - An example subtest
>   ok 3 - Third test
> The example below is from this page:
> But IIUC, it is not part of TAP 13 specification. There were some
> proposals for it in the old site, looking at the internet archive the best
> I could find was
> Take a look at "Test Groups" and "Test Blocks".
> I'm participating in a test management OSS application development (PHP),
> and we are going to use TAP for automation too, so I'm looking forward to
> new releases/discussions on TAP :)
> Hope that helps
> Bruno
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Gaurav Vaidya <>
> *To:* Andrew de Andrade <>
> *Cc:*
> *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 4:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [tap] RFC Status?
> Hi Andrew!
> On 11 Aug, 2014, at 12:42 pm, Andrew de Andrade <>
> wrote:
> > While thinking about this, I decided to go out and figure out if there
> is such a thing as nested TAP in the protocol specification. While
> searching for this, I came across this group, which is a great, but it
> appears there has been no activity here in a while and it looks like all
> the wiki pages with prior information about the state of the TAP protocol
> becoming an IETF RFC have disappeared.
> >
> > What's the current state of TAP? Is there still interest in taking this
> to RFC status? I found some previous discussions on the list about nested
> TAP. Did those make it into the specification in any way? If so, where can
> I find examples of correct nested tap results?
> The most recent version of the spec I could find was at,
> but this doesn’t talk about nesting at all. I’ve been out of the loop for
> a long, long time for graduate school reasons, but I think I remember
> someone (Ovid?) writing up a spec for nested TAP elsewhere?
> cheers,
> Gaurav
> _______________________________________________
> tap mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> tap mailing list