Re: [tap] RFC Status?

Steffen Schwigon <ss5@renormalist.net> Fri, 19 September 2014 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ss5@renormalist.net>
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 2A0AE1A0264 for <tap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] 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 OtExh5hUCbsw for <tap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h132974.serverkompetenz.net (renormalist.net [81.169.141.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E628C1A0263 for <tap@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by h132974.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 370CA3F27A8; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:59:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Steffen Schwigon <ss5@renormalist.net>
To: Ovid <publiustemp-tapx@yahoo.com>
References: <CAP4gcszybVr5Hw3mg=uTi8tqpA3wEVwo=zf2876RWhy_CmozZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHhgV8jr6ZnsfUkpFC4OL0AwRX-aen7v-7KjcN3e0_19s7steg@mail.gmail.com> <1410980929.82809.YahooMailNeo@web126106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:59:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1410980929.82809.YahooMailNeo@web126106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> (Ovid's message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:08:49 -0700")
Message-ID: <87bnqbwqhe.fsf@renormalist.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tap/suYqInEyMBJt1X8Wp0PNT1c7P40
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: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:59:45 -0000

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 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.


> As for the YAMLish structured diagnostics, those were never official,
> [...]
> whether or not we should use YAML or JSON
> [...]
> If you asked me what my stance is today, I would think that
> structured diagnostics should valid JSON

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.

Kind regards,
Steffen,
 (probably the most hardcore TAP user on earth)
-- 
Steffen Schwigon <ss5@renormalist.net>