Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from April 2006
Ovid wrote: > --- David Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote: >> Test.Simple—JavaScript. It looks and acts just like tap, although in >> reality it's tracking test results in an object rather than scraping >> them from a print buffer. >> >> http://openjsan.org/doc/t/th/theory/Test/Simple/ > > Tracking the results in an object is a better choice than scraping from > a print buffer. One of the frustrating issues with Perl's testing > tools is the limited flexibility we have due to reading the output from > STDOUT. > > The TAP output should really just be for humans. It should also be > reconfigurable, but obviously we can't do that because Test::Harness > would choke. I disagree. I think one of the key strengths of TAP, as opposed to most other testing systems out there, is that the test results are language-agnostic. It means we can do things like using a Perl Harness to hit web pages built by PHP-generated TAP output. Or mix tests for multiple languages in a single environment/system/dist. Certainly a more robust grammar could be useful, and an EBNF grammar sounds wonderful. Adam K > Since it looks like we're going to stick with reading information from > a print buffer, we should at least publish an EBNF grammar for the > output. (Interestingly, if we did that, we could potentially > incorporate that into Test::Harness and allow folks to provide their > own grammars and thus structure the output to better suit their needs. > Of course, I would like a Ponie with that, too). > > Cheers, > Ovid >Thread Previous | Thread Next