Michael G Schwern wrote: > Geoffrey Young wrote: >> Andy Armstrong wrote: >>> On 4 Dec 2007, at 15:22, Geoffrey Young wrote: >>>> it would be nice if this were enforced on the TAP-digestion side and not >>>> from the TAP-emitter side - the coupling of TAP rules within the >>>> TAP-emitter is what lead to my trouble in the first place. >>> A valid plan - at the beginning or the end - is required by Test::Harness. >> yup, I get that. but that has nothing to do with the Test::More errors >> that started the thread - I ought to be able to use is() functionality >> to emit into whatever stream I want and not have it complain about >> missing plans, especially when Test::Harness will catch malformed TAP >> and complain anyway... if I decide to send it to Test::Harness, which I >> may not. > > You can turn off all the ending checks with Test::Builder->no_ending(1) and > the header being printed with no_header(1). That's what we came up with back > then. > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.qa/2006/07/msg6212.html
yup, I've been doing that. I guess what I thought you were getting at was a natural decoupling of comparison functions with the planning without all the hackery involved to get that sepraration working now. so I was suggesting that the decoupling go further than just no_plan, and that yeah, rock on, great idea. 'tis all :) --Geoff
