[Automated-testing] LTP and test metadata

[Tim.Bird at sony.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cyril Hrubis 
> 
> Hi!
> > > [Note] here I am assuming that you can pass parameters to the test cases
> > > (e.g.: size, number of times, units, number of threads etc..) and that the
> set
> > > of parameters could affect the dependencies/requirements.
> > >
> > > 2) Test writers can add additional metadata by writting comments in a
> specific
> > > format layout. The format layout is an open question.
> > >
> > > [Comment] Could you describe the format that you support in your
> proof-of-
> > > concept?
> > Agreed.  It would be nice to have a description of the format, or some
> examples.
> 
> As I tried to explain, there is no format yet, it's just a text, it
> depends on how we make use of the data.
> 
> So we can start by agreeing on the markup format for the test
> documentation, I would go for one of the asscii based formats but there
> are a few to choose, the most used ones are probably:
> 
> * markdown
> * asciidoc
> * reStructuredText
> 
> Preferencies aside markdown seems to be aspiring for a industry
> standard, mostly due to GitHub so sticking to it would be a logical
> choice.

Just a note.  At the CKI hackfest we discussed adding meta-data 
to kselftests, and came to the conclusion that for any meta-data
expressed in the Linux kernel tree inside source files, we're likely
going to have to use the kernel-doc format (or have to explain
why we're introducing a new structured-comment format).

I'm not sure if this influences the decision for other projects,
or if it matters, a long as there is a 'converter-to-json' for each
format used for this stuff.

And as another note, Fuego currently uses reStructuredText,
but we don't actually have the infrastructure in place to process
it yet.
 -- Tim