On Monday 24 April 2006 01:46, Michael Peters wrote:
> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
> >> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >>> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> >>> harness.
> >>
> >> No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
> >
> > I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are
> > you implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different
> > test harnesses to process such test outputs? (I'm just guessing.)
> >
> > Wouldn't that imply duplicate code, duplicate functionality and/or
> > duplicate effort? Shouldn't we try to avoid that by making sure that we
> > have one *good* test harness codebase that can be customised using
> > plug-ins, and extensions?
>
> How about a good TAP parser module that does nothing but parse TAP. Then
> it could be used in all kinds of test harness permutations.
Am I missing something or isn't that what
Test::Harness:Straps/Test::Run::Straps are for? If not, I suppose I can
extract a class out of Test::Run::Straps that will provide a reusable TAP
parser.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/
95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the
bottom 5%.
