On 1 Nov 2007, at 14:32, Michael Peters wrote:
But if they just do their own harness it becomes:push('xt/frob', @tests)if frob_avail(); push('xt/slow) if all_the_time_in_the_world(); Test::Harness::runtests(@tests);
Yes, they could. But if you write your own harness you presumably lose, e.g., the advantages of all the different ways you can run the tests via prove. And presumably you couldn't use tk-prove or whatever it's called.
It's mixing test logic into harness logic. Isn't it better for the tests to be completely self describing and keep the harness generic? Then your tests will work with any Test::Harness based tool and any compatible TAP harness.
-- Andy Armstrong, Hexten
