My two cents. I parse the text file and generate html that is appropriate for my work, for example, separating out the failures. But I preserve the text file as it has information, e.g., on test order. HTML and XML can make the file harder for me to parse into a format useful to my work.
I also run the IntelMPITEST suite that generates XML. I can and do parse it but it can take more work. A benefit it provides is a greater amount of output from the individual test. The XML tags make cutting that out when not needed easier. Then again, I always need the corresponding XSL file to allow a reasonable display and then only through a browser. If the output is made available in new formats, I vote that the text one be retained as well and that the new ones add more than just reformatting. Mike Melendez Software Test Lead SiCortex Maynard, MA Subrata Modak wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:11 -0300, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo wrote: > >>On Monday 17 September 2007 11:28:08 Subrata Modak wrote: >>But my question is, do we really need to have a parser to geneate kind of a >>HTML file? I guess that the normal text file is already enough. > > > Yes, the information contained in the text file is enough, but may not > be that representable/viewable. What we can do is present the same info > in more better/attractive way. May be if we can show things in HTML (and > tabular format), with all the failed tests sorted out and appearing in > the beginning (with some back ground colour highlighting), the user > immediately gets attention of all the failed tests along with the > reason(s). Won´t that be a little pretty ?? May be all of you can decide > upon this !! > > >>>3) Ricardoś patch (applied earlier) to provide the name of Failed file >>>(containing the tag name and cmdline entries of failed test-cases) does >> >>I didn't want to add the error info at the same file so we could easily ask >>LTP to run only the failed test cases. As we already have all the output at >>another file, I don't think that we should modify how we're creating this >>file. > > > Yes, let us keep it as it is. > > >>I guess that what we have at the output file is enough to see what's >>happening, like: >><<<test_start>>> >>tag=gf17 stime=1189631960 >>cmdline="growfiles -W gf17 -b -e 1 -i 0 -L 120 -u -g 5000 -T 100 -t >>499990 -l -C 10 -c 1000 -S 10 -f Lgf03_" >>contacts="" >>analysis=exit >>initiation_status="ok" >><<<test_output>>> >>gf17 1 PASS : Test passed >><<<execution_status>>> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
