I think that formatted plain-text output would be much better than XML,
something that is human-readable and relatively easy to parse via
machine. Something similar to the GHC error output would work well
because developers are familiar with it.
Test <n>:<Result>
<Location>
<Error message>
E.g.,
Test 1:Passed
src/Some/File.hs:23
Test 2:Failed
src/Some/File.hs:27
Expecting `4'; received `5'.
Test 3:Error
src/Some/OtherFile.hs:39
Unexpected exception.
This would keep the complexity low in Cabal and allow for easy
transformation to XML.
Richard G.
On 10-04-08 8:30 PM, Rogan Creswick wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Duncan Coutts
<duncan.cou...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I think it's important to be able to convert into standard or custom
formats. I've no idea if JUnit XML would make sense as the native
format. It's plausible.
I hadn't really thought about cabal, itself, being a consumer for test
results -- but I like your (Duncan's) points about defining a testing
interface, and keeping it extensible.
For the record: I don't think junit xml is a good choice for a native
format :), but I do think it's a good format to start with simply
because there are many tools that can consume it already.
--Rogan
Duncan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
