feat: add global output formatter support (text/json/yaml) by cotishq · Pull Request #371 · microcks/microcks-cli

cotishq · 2026-05-12T06:18:02Z

Description

Added a global --output flag to microcks test with supported values: text (default), json, and yaml.
Introduced a reusable output layer in pkg/output with shared formatter routing and dedicated formatters (TextFormatter, JSONFormatter, YAMLFormatter) so other commands can reuse the same pattern later.
Added TestResultJSON mapping structs that mirror connectors.TestResult fields (including nested test case/step fields) and used them for structured JSON/YAML serialization.
Updated test command execution flow to route by --output format while preserving existing default text behavior and existing exit code semantics.
Ensured structured outputs (json/yaml) are emitted to stdout for automation use-cases, with progress/info logs routed to stderr.
Added/updated tests in pkg/output for JSON/YAML formatting and formatter factory selection.
Updated command docs in documentation/cmd/test.md to include the new --output flag and supported values.

Related issue(s)

Resolves #301

cotishq · 2026-05-12T06:34:50Z

@Harsh4902 so i raised this pr as you stated, a global --output flag with json, yaml and text format initially, would love your on this, if changes should be make, happy to iterate

Caesarsage

Nice shape overall, left a few comment you could check out

Also worth noting per the #301 discussion, this PR and #339 were meant to unify under one flag with github-actions as a value. That coordination still hasn't landed

Caesarsage · 2026-05-14T05:13:22Z

 	testCmd.Flags().StringVar(&filteredOperations, "filteredOperations", "", "List of operations to launch a test for")
 	testCmd.Flags().StringVar(&operationsHeaders, "operationsHeaders", "", "Override of operations headers as JSON string")
 	testCmd.Flags().StringVar(&oAuth2Context, "oAuth2Context", "", "Spec of an OAuth2 client context as JSON string")
+	testCmd.Flags().StringVar(&outputFormat, "output", "text", "Output format: text, json, or yaml")


The flag isn't actually global. Registered on testCmd.Flags(), not root:

microcks import-dir --output=json wouldn't work today. Worth lifting to rootCmd.PersistentFlags().

Caesarsage · 2026-05-14T05:13:57Z

+type Formatter interface {
+	FormatTestResult(result *connectors.TestResult) string
+	FormatTestCaseResult(testCase *connectors.TestCaseResult) string
+}


For a global flag this won't extend to import-dir or import. Either go generic (Formatter[T any]) or use per-command formatter interfaces resolved via factory.

ya you are right that the current pkg/output.Formatter is still test-result specific, so it won’t automatically cover import/import-dir payloads yet. For this pr, I kept scope to test output behavior (issue #301) to avoid broad refactor risk.

Caesarsage · 2026-05-14T05:15:26Z

+				if isTextOutput {
+					fmt.Printf("MicrocksClient got status for test \"%s\" - success: %s, inProgress: %s \n", testResultID, fmt.Sprint(success), fmt.Sprint(inProgress))
+				} else {
+					fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "MicrocksClient got status for test \"%s\" - success: %s, inProgress: %s \n", testResultID, fmt.Sprint(success), fmt.Sprint(inProgress))
+				}


Abstraction leaks back into the command. This branch repeats at three sites in the polling loop. For a global flag every command will end up with this same branching. The text/non-text routing should live in the formatter (e.g. a Progress(io.Writer, string) method) instead.

Caesarsage · 2026-05-14T05:27:14Z


 # test data files
-**/testdata/**
+**/testdata/**.gocache/


probably should be this

Suggested change

**/testdata/**.gocache/

**/testdata/**

.gocache/

cotishq · 2026-05-14T14:15:16Z

Nice shape overall, left a few comment you could check out

Also worth noting per the #301 discussion, this PR and #339 were meant to unify under one flag with github-actions as a value. That coordination still hasn't landed

i stated there that , it could be good if this pr gets merged and then we apply github-actions as a value, for a clean repo state.
Also thanks for the comments , i'll address all of them

Caesarsage · 2026-05-14T14:22:50Z

Nice shape overall, left a few comment you could check out
Also worth noting per the #301 discussion, this PR and #339 were meant to unify under one flag with github-actions as a value. That coordination still hasn't landed

i stated there that , it could be good if this pr gets merged and then we apply github-actions as a value, for a clean repo state. Also thanks for the comments , i'll address all of them

I won't advise this been merge as it is now. Check my other comments, the PR is not doing what's it stated

cotishq · 2026-05-14T15:22:28Z

Nice shape overall, left a few comment you could check out
Also worth noting per the #301 discussion, this PR and #339 were meant to unify under one flag with github-actions as a value. That coordination still hasn't landed

i stated there that , it could be good if this pr gets merged and then we apply github-actions as a value, for a clean repo state. Also thanks for the comments , i'll address all of them

I won't advise this been merge as it is now. Check my other comments, the PR is not doing what's it stated

ya so i will address all the changes you have commented first, the PR is intended to solve the issue, but yeah your comments are worth addressing and i will come up with the valid changes

Harishrs2006 · 2026-05-14T18:52:04Z

few thoughts

Moving the --output flag to rootCmd.PersistentFlags() would make
it truly global and match the maintainer's direction from feat: Add --output flag for JSONformatted test results #301
The formatter interface could accept a FormatResult(result) method
so all branching lives inside the formatter, not the polling loop
Once this lands, happy to add github-actions format as a follow-up

Signed-off-by: cotishq <tanishqp101204@gmail.com>

cotishq · 2026-05-14T19:58:19Z

Nice shape overall, left a few comment you could check out
Also worth noting per the #301 discussion, this PR and #339 were meant to unify under one flag with github-actions as a value. That coordination still hasn't landed

i stated there that , it could be good if this pr gets merged and then we apply github-actions as a value, for a clean repo state. Also thanks for the comments , i'll address all of them

I won't advise this been merge as it is now. Check my other comments, the PR is not doing what's it stated

i have updated the pr as you stated, i think its good now

cotishq requested review from Harsh4902, lbroudoux and yada as code owners May 12, 2026 06:18

cotishq temporarily deployed to Build May 12, 2026 06:18 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

cotishq force-pushed the feat/add-output-flag-test-command branch from ef4cdc7 to bae1e5b Compare May 12, 2026 06:18

cotishq temporarily deployed to Build May 12, 2026 06:18 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Caesarsage reviewed May 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

Harishrs2006 mentioned this pull request May 14, 2026

feat: add JUnit XML output format and --output-file flag for CI/CD test reporting #386

Open

cotishq force-pushed the feat/add-output-flag-test-command branch from bae1e5b to b8f0c44 Compare May 14, 2026 19:39

cotishq added 2 commits May 15, 2026 01:10

feat(test): add global output formatter support (text/json/yaml)

2f378f4

Signed-off-by: cotishq <tanishqp101204@gmail.com>

refactor: centralize output stream routing and fix ignore patterns

0acd8a6

Signed-off-by: cotishq <tanishqp101204@gmail.com>

cotishq temporarily deployed to Build May 14, 2026 19:40 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

cotishq force-pushed the feat/add-output-flag-test-command branch from b8f0c44 to 0acd8a6 Compare May 14, 2026 19:40

cotishq deployed to Build May 14, 2026 19:40 — with GitHub Actions Active

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat: add global output formatter support (text/json/yaml)#371

feat: add global output formatter support (text/json/yaml)#371
cotishq wants to merge 2 commits into
microcks:masterfrom
cotishq:feat/add-output-flag-test-command

cotishq commented May 12, 2026

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Caesarsage left a comment

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

cotishq May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Caesarsage commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Harishrs2006 commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

cotishq commented May 12, 2026

Description

Related issue(s)

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Caesarsage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cotishq May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Caesarsage May 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Caesarsage commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Harishrs2006 commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

cotishq commented May 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

cotishq commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cotishq commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading