Comment 3 for bug 1232077

On 13-09-27 03:03 PM, Jeff Lane wrote:
> IMO, the correct behaviour should be that passing tests only retrieve
> stdout while failures capture both stdout and stdin.
>
> I'm sure checkbox already caches these somehow, so that it can grab the
> appropriate one for the results, so should be a matter of maybe either
> concatenating them for failures, or simply changing the output to look
> something like this for failed tests:
>
>
> STDOUT:
> soem stuff here
> more stuff
> usual suff
> lots o output
>
> STDERR:
> error message
> more error messages
>
> The problem there is that it's possible the error messages will appear
> out of sync with the non-error output.
>
> The only way I can think of to solve that would really be to dump them
> together at the test level and just grab them all, or do something like
> this:
>
> each line of output would become a tuple in an ordered list:
>
> 1:(stdout,'something')
> 2:(stdout,'something more')
> 3:(stderr,'error message')
> 4:(stdout,'more output')

^^ This is *exactly* what plainbox does :) (it even captures timing information).

I'll have a look at what checkbox knows about test output and see how we can
accomodate this.

>
> then when the result is collected, they can be replayed in order and for
> failures, grab all, and for pass, ignore anything with stderr in the
> tuple...
>
> though that may be too complex an answer.,..
>