[TIP] Result protocol / problems being solved (really)
jnoller at gmail.com
Tue Apr 14 08:55:23 PDT 2009
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Victoria G. Laidler <laidler at stsci.edu> wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>> 8> This should not require a custom wire format, or parser. It should
>> use something in widespread use (e.g. XML, JSON), it should have
>> cross-language support and be human readable.
> I thought about this, but I was trying to separate issues pertaining to the
> result protocol itself (what data it contains, what is the underlyling data
> model) from issues pertaining to the wire format and parsing.
> It doesn't make sense to focus on the format before we understand the
> requirements for the data itself. I do agree that language-agnosticism
> probably implies a standard format, and human-readability is a requirement
> for me.
We'll need to agree to disagree: I can't ignore something as
fundamental as making this standard, built on standard technologies. I
think anything which defined some custom syntax, requiring parser
implementations is a quick road to failtown.
>> Other than that, the basic outline is correct. Let me also point out
>> that there is a use case for some people involved that involves
>> parsing results directly from a stream, such as stdout. This means
>> they need the ability to parse the result messages from the stream.
This isn't my requirement, but I think it goes like this:
run test in subprocess
parse stdout for result data
The final step implies the ability to separate log information from
result information, ala:
2009-04-14 14:44:53,501 : INFO : connecting to host
2009-04-14 14:44:53,501 : INFO : connected
2009-04-14 14:44:53,501 : INFO : sending job
The result would need to be parsed by the thing watching stdout.
More information about the testing-in-python