Add : Support outputting the result of 'verify' in YAML format and only outputting the summary of the result of 'verify'

[chunriyeqiongsaigao]

1. Added a new command-line parameter -o, which stands for --output. The value of this parameter represents the format in which the summary of the verify results should be outputted. Currently, only YAML format is supported, the value of which is yaml. If the command e2e verify -c e2e.yaml -o yaml is entered, only the summary in YAML format will be outputted to the CL.

2. Added a new command-line parameter --summary-only. If the command e2e verify -c e2e.yaml --summary-only is entered, only the SUMMARY part of verify results will be outputted to the CL.

example：

This is the cases section of the e2e.yaml config file for verify. It provides 4 cases for e2e to veriy. And case-1, case-2, and case-4 will pass, while case-3 will fail.

1. A command without -o yaml : ./bin/linux/e2e verify -c ../e2e/e2e.yaml

2. A command with -o yaml : ./bin/linux/e2e verify -c ../e2e/e2e.yaml -o yaml

3. A command without --summary-only : ./bin/linux/e2e verify -c ../e2e/e2e.yaml

4. A command with --summary-only : ./bin/linux/e2e verify -c ../e2e/e2e.yaml --summary-only

[wu-sheng]

What does y actually stand for?

[chunriyeqiongsaigao]

What does y actually stand for?

In my opinion, the y stands for yaml.
Perhaps the naming of this parameter is not appropriate, and I expect my mentor to provide me with guidance and feedback on it later.

[fgksgf]

@chunriyeqiongsaigao
I think --output and -o would be better, just like kubectl. And we may need to support more output format in the future. In this case, we can specify -o yaml to output the result in YAML.

[wu-sheng]

I am a little confused. From what I read from your demo, the -y seems to disable the diff, is that relative to the YAML? Somehow?

[fgksgf]

I am a little confused. From what I read from your demo, the -y seems to disable the diff, is that relative to the YAML? Somehow?

We need this PR to make e2e (the dev version) output the verify result in yaml format, so that another e2e (the stable version) can use the yaml output to verify if the dev version e2e works well, just like we discussed in this

[wu-sheng]

OK. This seems more like summary in YAML because actually you disabled many other things.

@kezhenxu94 Are you aware of the naming thing? Any suggestion?

[fgksgf]

OK. This seems more like summary in YAML because actually you disabled many other things.

Yes

[chunriyeqiongsaigao]

@chunriyeqiongsaigao I think --output and -o would be better, just like kubectl. And we may need to support more output format in the future. In this case, we can specify -o yaml to output the result in YAML.

OK, I will edit the code later. Thanks!

[wu-sheng]

If we consider more formats, we should consider this in two parts.

1. Whether output the verify diff or summary.
2. What is the format of the final result.

[kezhenxu94]

OK. This seems more like summary in YAML because actually you disabled many other things.

@kezhenxu94 Are you aware of the naming thing? Any suggestion?

I'm not quite aware of the naming thing. @chunriyeqiongsaigao Can you ping your mentor here.

From my understanding, if this is about the output format, then the format name might not be a good command option -y, instead you might want to add an option to set the output format such as -o, and make yaml one of the possible value of that option. -o yaml

[wu-sheng]

-o/--output yaml seems good, meanwhile, could we consider --output-detail Y/N(or a better name) to disable the raw diff separately?

[chunriyeqiongsaigao]

I'm not quite aware of the naming thing. @chunriyeqiongsaigao Can you ping your mentor here.
OK！My mentor @fgksgf 👍👍👍

[fgksgf]

-o/--output yaml seems good, meanwhile, could we consider --output-detail Y/N(or a better name) to disable the raw diff separately?

Make sense, I will discuss with the student.

[wu-sheng]

Please update PR title and descriptions to fit your latest codes.

[chunriyeqiongsaigao]

Please update PR title and descriptions to fit your latest codes.

Sure, I will update the PR title and descriptions to align with the latest changes in the code. Thank you for the reminder.

[wu-sheng]

I think new command style is good. I want to confirm, is the real tests for this tool will come next?

[fgksgf]

Basically correct 👍, but need some polish

[fgksgf]

I think new command style is good. I want to confirm, is the real tests for this tool will come next?

Yes, the student has made a POC.

[fgksgf]

some nits

[fgksgf]

LGTM, well done!

[wu-sheng]

@fgksgf After further tests are added, are we planning a new release?

It has been 24 commits included and over a year since the last release. v1.2.0...main

[fgksgf]

@fgksgf After further tests are added, are we planning a new release?

It has been 24 commits included and over a year since the last release. v1.2.0...main

@wu-sheng No problem, i will do this.