* David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com> [2009-02-06 04:05]: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: >> Or would that be 1..4? Having an overall plan violation on >> top of the plan addition failure seems a bit much, because the >> number of tests run was correct (until we added one of our >> own). > > 1..4? God no. I think this: > > # Planning 2 more tests at foo.t line 3. > ok 1 - First test > # Looks like you planned 2 tests, but only 1 was run > # at foo.t line 6. > ok 3 - Second test > ok 4 - Third test > 1..3 > > That is, all tests should pass, but the test suite itself > should fail, just as happens now if you have the wrong number > of tests. Not sure how you'd show that, though.
++ I didn’t think of it, but now that I see it, that is exactly what should happen. Only three tests were planned, but the first leg of the test program did not complete (test 2 is missing) and the second leg overshot (there’s an extra test 4). That TAP stream expresses these things precisely with no artificial extra test results injected. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
