Re: [tap] Valids subtests (was: RFC Status?)

Andrew Rodland <andrew@cleverdomain.org> Fri, 19 September 2014 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew@cleverdomain.org>
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 ABB081A912F for <tap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 6I1pjjX31_ZV for <tap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.pobox.com (smtp.pobox.com [208.72.237.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879421A9163 for <tap@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E81A3B4F9 for <tap@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:58:53 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; s=sasl; bh=7rcE41WbjIfl94be2HVPiQbGkAE=; b=deuKXe e3Oz03ROqIbjk7fRktZTN2nzMi3LhuNeEbo/sF+JhayAiayWFs2ZcVQnTWnoUyV6 6aSSOPeXbM52g8slWIAni2ICqmyozV8MW8g2SF+UR6hrRr425FiJWZj297nbOsye tmq6h67sVCKRELysyABmixr+f8qePki6oeAUk=
Received: from pb-smtp0. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4607F3B4F8 for <tap@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:58:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (unknown [209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2EC83B4F3 for <tap@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:58:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id tr6so2626469ieb.40 for <tap@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.36.38 with SMTP id n6mr4579764igj.24.1411099132305; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.36.16 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1410981416.81953.YahooMailNeo@web163504.mail.gq1.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> <1410981416.81953.YahooMailNeo@web163504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:58:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CABFQKmObv0EG=iVhzPNYGKwK44k7QtEV+PfrvBnDjn35MjbzBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Rodland <andrew@cleverdomain.org>
To: Ovid <publiustemp-tapx@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 450FBCE0-3FB1-11E4-87C6-BD2DC4D60FE0-16769786!pb-smtp0.pobox.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tap/yCMA703K7oVzgLpcHM70jE4gW3o
Cc: "tap@ietf.org" <tap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tap] Valids subtests (was: 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 03:59:25 -0000

> A few notes on this.
>
> For subtests, they are indented four spaces. Always four spaces. If they are
> indented eight spaces, you know they're a subtest of a subtest (assuming
> there's an intervening subtest. That means this is valid TAP, but there is
> no subtest because it's indented too far:
>
> ok 1 - foo
>         ok 1 - bar indented too far
> ok 2 - bar passed
>
> The "ok 1 - bar" line would be discarded as "unknown".

I'm not trying to argue against established behavior, but I'd like to
point out that this disagrees with what you expressed in the previous
thread "More uncertainty about junk lines". In that, we agreed that it
was desirable that the determination of whether a line was
junk/unknown wasn't context sensitive. If it's potentially valid TAP
in any context, it's interpreted as that, and if that causes the TAP
document to be invalid, then so be it. If that holds true, then this
snippet is an error; it has a result in a subsubtest that lacks a plan
or a containing subtest.

Andrew