On 1 Nov 2007, at 14:31, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
This way they can have control over not only which files to
run, but which routines (if they're using Test::Class), etc,
etc.
… TAP encompasses scenarios where the notion of files and test
routines doesn’t even compute.
Yes - agree 100%. Hence it shouldn't be part of TAP.
Writing your own harness is trivial now. I'd say writing
something to emit a new protocol is no easier than writing a
script that picks the test files/subs to run.
Agree. Putting this sort of functionality in the default harness
*is* a good idea so people don’t need to reinvent a common wheel,
and so you can use a declarative language to define this sort of
thing. But just make this a config for TAP::Harness.
The config needs to be dynamic at test time - so it might as well be a
script that runs and outputs a description of which tests to run,
right? So isn't that nearly TSP? :)
--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
