Andy Armstrong wrote: > On 30 Nov 2007, at 03:00, Michael G Schwern wrote: >> Otherwise, what's important to people? I know there's a lot of >> suggestions >> about increasing the flexibility of planning. Also the oft requested >> "I'm >> done running tests" sentinel for a safer "no_plan". Most of the time >> I'm just >> wibbling over interface details, getting the names just right. >> (What! Argue >> over tiny interface issues? The Deuce you say!) > > The ability to emit TAP 13 c/w structured diagnostics would be hot.
Two open, but non-showstopper, issues related to that. 1) What do we do with the regular STDERR diagnostics? Ideally we'd have some way to detect that the harness is going read our YAML diagnostic and generate it's own user-readable version. AFAIK none such thing exists. At the moment, they will just always get emitted. I don't have any other good solution in mind other than accepting an environment variable (tied to a Test::Builder method) to switch it off. It's really a decision the harness has to convey to the tests. 2) What do we do if we don't have a YAML emitter? At the moment, we just won't emit diagnostics. Possibilities include shipping with a copy of YAML::Tiny or write our own dumbed down YAML generator based on the is_deeply() code as it already knows how to walk a data structure. > Then > we can reopen the debate about the namespace within diagnostic blocks > and lose another four weeks of our respective lives :) I'm going to pretend I don't know anything about diagnostic namespaces, which is easy, cause I don't. LALALALALALA -- I have a date with some giant cartoon robots and booze.
