From andrew@cleverdomain.org Fri Jun 24 06:08:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDA321F84CE for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2WZrlYIFnSMq for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.pobox.com (b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174E421F84C9 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B4521BD for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:08:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=sasl; bh=lDb5Ee FsouTRVdVnLgc+AZsF6MA=; b=OnlGtB6k+QZjxUPYtgEAD0KArHC1qdzZQn7KyL K/tgiJLfUhDbjkcoacra8jSg5by/WGd9OI0GmF8SgqQHNO2kT0clgPpbTrq+Oq5s xmUsDTggnR6sk30Q3jRMovvKaDQaIbq28qIbssjU/wEb9GOpJwxSRmc0Pntk4obV KizBg= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C04321BC for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (unknown [74.125.82.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3613C21BB for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so1930594wwe.13 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:08:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.0.206 with SMTP id 56mr632800web.112.1308920890243; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.89.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.89.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:08:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Andrew Rodland To: "tap-l@testanything.org" , "tap@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ed9aeb3b8e504a674e4ec X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 032A3E38-9E63-11E0-966B-91CE2E706CDE-16769786!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Subject: [tap] More uncertainty about junk lines X-BeenThere: tap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:08:14 -0000 --0016364ed9aeb3b8e504a674e4ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Once again I'm working on my parser and trying to deal with some ambiguities, and I'm realizing that I may be mistaken about the handling of junk lines. What does "any line that does not parse must be ignored" in the draft spec really mean? Does it mean lines that couldn't possibly be TAP in any position (in which case we can still throw an error on out-of-sequence TAP) or does it mean any line that can't parse in *this* position, in which case there are no true parse errors at all? In other words, is this TAP: 1..3 ok 1 ok 2 1..1 ok 3 valid with an ignored fourth line, or does it have an error on the fourth line? Andrew --0016364ed9aeb3b8e504a674e4ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Once again I'm working on my parser and trying to deal with some amb= iguities, and I'm realizing that I may be mistaken about the handling o= f junk lines. What does "any line that does not parse must be ignored&= quot; in the draft spec really mean? Does it mean lines that couldn't p= ossibly be TAP in any position (in which case we can still throw an error o= n out-of-sequence TAP) or does it mean any line that can't parse in *th= is* position, in which case there are no true parse errors at all? In other= words, is this TAP:

1..3
ok 1
ok 2
1..1
ok 3

valid with an ignored fourth line, or does it have an error on the fourt= h line?

Andrew

--0016364ed9aeb3b8e504a674e4ec-- From andrew@cleverdomain.org Fri Jun 24 06:52:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE0921F8470 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:52:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TSOCFJXmQ8WJ for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.pobox.com (b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D752521F846F for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755CF2A2F for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:52:17 -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=Ps19+f1CS73tDulteXNdhGVDTJo=; b=PcDKZB VEfKP/ZPcibSqOCRfny4DI822Qsz3azati9TzAparyXsuYeDUSZAuxMq8isIpY1j ONmo/OiW5FKwRGlnxA6+Ppx5fhs7IJ3hXzV8xNq+YLXXjLJbsHtX1d4vjJFJPe/b UhZGOQhNZ0Q76oL6h5leCvz8RRglemFQGClS0= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A67F2A2D for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (unknown [74.125.82.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFB7C2A28 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so2197029wyj.31 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:52:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.133.210 with SMTP id q60mr727426wei.1.1308923536042; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.89.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:52:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <818669.75391.qm@web65712.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <818669.75391.qm@web65712.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:52:16 -0400 Message-ID: From: Andrew Rodland To: Ovid Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dede03676ba004a6758277 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2C2977EE-9E69-11E0-B196-91CE2E706CDE-16769786!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Cc: "tap-l@testanything.org" , "tap@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [tap] More uncertainty about junk lines X-BeenThere: tap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:52:20 -0000 --0016e6dede03676ba004a6758277 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ovid wrote: > >________________________________ > >From: Andrew Rodland > >To: "tap-l@testanything.org" ; "tap@ietf.org" < > tap@ietf.org> > >Sent: Friday, 24 June 2011, 15:08 > >Subject: [tap] More uncertainty about junk lines > > > > > >Once again I'm working on my parser and trying to deal with some > ambiguities, and I'm realizing that I may be mistaken about the handling of > junk lines. What does "any line that does not parse must be ignored" in the > draft spec really mean? Does it mean lines that couldn't possibly be TAP in > any position (in which case we can still throw an error on out-of-sequence > TAP) or does it mean any line that can't parse in *this* position, in which > case there are no true parse errors at all? In other words, is this TAP: > >1..3 > >ok 1 > >ok 2 > >1..1 > >ok 3 > >valid with an ignored fourth line, or does it have an error on the fourth > line? > > > That's a very annoying edge case you have there, but I would argue that > anything which *could* be parsed as a TAP line MUST be parsed as such, thus > rendering the above invalid. Otherwise, we'd have no idea if you were > spitting out bad TAP or something else was spitting out junk which happened > to look like TAP. > > Thus: > > * If something *can* be parsed as a TAP line, do so, even if it renders the > TAP document invalid. > * If something *can't* be parsed as a TAP line, ignore it. > I agree entirely. I implemented the opposite behavior in TAP::Spec::Parser and I've been uncomfortable about it ever since I have. Only allowing "non-TAP lines" to be ignored as junk seems a lot more sane, in terms of allowing us to reject malformed TAP and in terms of keeping parsers manageable. I'm going to change the behavior in TAP::Spec::Parser, write a few tests for it, and then set about clarifying the spec, maybe at YAPC. Andrew --0016e6dede03676ba004a6758277 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ovid <curtis_ovid_poe@y= ahoo.com> wrote:
>________________________________
>From: Andrew Rodland <and= rew@cleverdomain.org>
>To: "tap-l@testanything.= org" <tap-l@testanyth= ing.org>; "tap@ietf.org&quo= t; <tap@ietf.org>
>Sent: Friday, 24 June 2011, 15:08
>Subject: [tap] More uncertainty about junk lines
>
>
>Once again I'm working on my parser and trying to deal with some am= biguities, and I'm realizing that I may be mistaken about the handling = of junk lines. What does "any line that does not parse must be ignored= " in the draft spec really mean? Does it mean lines that couldn't = possibly be TAP in any position (in which case we can still throw an error = on out-of-sequence TAP) or does it mean any line that can't parse in *t= his* position, in which case there are no true parse errors at all? In othe= r words, is this TAP:
>1..3
>ok 1
>ok 2
>1..1
>ok 3
>valid with an ignored fourth line, or does it have an error on the four= th line?


That's a very annoying edge case you have there, but I woul= d argue that anything which *could* be parsed as a TAP line MUST be parsed = as such, thus rendering the above invalid. Otherwise, we'd have no idea= if you were spitting out bad TAP or something else was spitting out junk w= hich happened to look like TAP.
=A0
Thus:

* If something *can* be parsed as a TAP line, do so, even if it renders the= TAP document invalid.
* If something *can't* be parsed as a TAP line, ignore it.

I agree entirely. I implemented the opposite behavi= or in TAP::Spec::Parser and I've been uncomfortable about it ever since= I have. Only allowing "non-TAP lines" to be ignored as junk seem= s a lot more sane, in terms of allowing us to reject malformed TAP and in t= erms of keeping parsers manageable. I'm going to change the behavior in= TAP::Spec::Parser, write a few tests for it, and then set about clarifying= the spec, maybe at YAPC.

Andrew
--0016e6dede03676ba004a6758277-- From curtis_ovid_poe@yahoo.com Fri Jun 24 06:20:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9768511E809B for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:20:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEBYTP8NrYGG for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.52.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FA4511E8089 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.52.189] by nm5.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2011 13:20:31 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.155] by tm2.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2011 13:20:31 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1038.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2011 13:20:31 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 4406.50001.bm@omp1038.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 91170 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Jun 2011 13:20:30 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1308921630; bh=da3OZXeyehwFRzZl4VmUMmcYD7p+bOX16WIDKxgBNNk=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=sNS5i8yYas2/wupy38s9tu853ErH2CqNGZ8P5BvHQx/mOkkf7UvYktYnNkWJzv8fPD+bqivJwYKjTSNM5o4fmHxb4tRTRGEb73nqa4nuT421zyRQWl8+3JyJobAFSz29U/eL1lFHGe7Nbefhx1OlLr2nloV+DIf77B5sYrhNoGg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VM1Dx20QJwuXjJ42Yhjg+Aj6+mKKdhtOWw10wF4qbjvGnSobgJ2oHBIZrCiUko97tE/Oz0XXl95OUxgPSc7g+dt7dbJQNuBRU0fD9e1IGJjCFWwIKkeSi+lm6JNNJh7tqzISL7NI89bXP1oPxhgowL9LNh/FugQrlDlpkgpWSRg=; Message-ID: <818669.75391.qm@web65712.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 5mpkYBcVM1kLqXpndXSmC8pXYxP_TGLMZV9.eMNh8pOEfnh wGuptuuZ0dSaqAAD9va92Zeh9_x0Y__ZZVYWdA3HWOW75VP7Sw72Ere9WUn7 NFwFIXwaY0_AyabmU9qK6ijypnaKuD2rwgVhOOdyJIKiV7ctHLTvi0ScWnsV sx4_J0rs.jkNdS6Fq7h1okihfP_AhIYt.aWzwkXWR_nucktrwEp5lEK0zLHg 4nCmXbIH7IicAZYbbe._SUXcfrW5RxxP.bcQUOn0byKpFMBhy.YJr9VvrG4G Ds8E4mHhIaM_T86H9fsNmB8jgK7aaGxrgbNKXSfjzDqZogvYNzKjzBb3fHTD QmsCw_o2FQ4vJtjLRnC3m7dctISkkwNiYA3gbFGB83E4x4o3q7O79O4oQ7ZK 4TS6olL2GCKCSqkMcfTuv_.jchzXVBuMofQ2veH2K8kDaNCeL2_0ei8NdACb 4DLUMOQexfnmr_OBTlsEjU9XAtnoceKZOPpeVLP_PiWAlnfMJxDo83nu097m mz9bSZ1Q5Vc0EmPMc4VzEAE6K_tdEqUJHZ6OVidaAKqmijl4fYWeqvayvHX3 tnKIBjS2wph52Cs_y8YS9zTc0bATaWjGGKA0H513od2I4S4a9V8VgBeZr0t3 TZpPGM2vamtnxx4CdDAbb5Dp26z0JLTVtzieFCcL0fFJ2hItXG7iwxtMM Received: from [62.190.51.12] by web65712.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:20:30 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.304355 References: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:20:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Ovid To: Andrew Rodland , "tap-l@testanything.org" , "tap@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:29:51 -0700 Subject: Re: [tap] More uncertainty about junk lines X-BeenThere: tap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ovid List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:20:38 -0000 >________________________________=0A>From: Andrew Rodland =0A>To: "tap-l@testanything.org" ; "tap@iet= f.org" =0A>Sent: Friday, 24 June 2011, 15:08=0A>Subject: [tap= ] More uncertainty about junk lines=0A>=0A>=0A>Once again I'm working on my= parser and trying to deal with some ambiguities, and I'm realizing that I = may be mistaken about the handling of junk lines. What does "any line that = does not parse must be ignored" in the draft spec really mean? Does it mean= lines that couldn't possibly be TAP in any position (in which case we can = still throw an error on out-of-sequence TAP) or does it mean any line that = can't parse in *this* position, in which case there are no true parse error= s at all? In other words, is this TAP:=0A>1..3=0A>ok 1=0A>ok 2=0A>1..1=0A>o= k 3=0A>valid with an ignored fourth line, or does it have an error on the f= ourth line?=0A=0A=0AThat's a very annoying edge case you have there, but I = would argue that anything which *could* be parsed as a TAP line MUST be par= sed as such, thus rendering the above invalid. Otherwise, we'd have no idea= if you were spitting out bad TAP or something else was spitting out junk w= hich happened to look like TAP.=0A=A0=0AThus:=0A=0A* If something *can* be = parsed as a TAP line, do so, even if it renders the TAP document invalid.= =0A* If something *can't* be parsed as a TAP line, ignore it.=0A=0ACheers,= =0AOvid=0A--=0ALive and work overseas -=A0http://overseas-exile.blogspot.co= m/=0ABuy the book=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -=A0http://www.oreilly.com/= catalog/perlhks/=0ATech blog=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0-=A0h= ttp://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/=0ATwitter=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0-=A0http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/=0A