* Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> [2009-02-18 22:45]: > Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> [2009-02-18 21:55]: > >> One of the issues with that approach is Test::Builder's > >> history can't store test #2 twice. So history is lost. > > > > Shouldn’t this be fixed? > > Sure, but how?
I don’t know. But injecting artificial test results seems like a fairly big modification to the format’s semantics to me, and I’m not comfortable with the idea of doing that for no greater reason than that the existing codebase has inadequacies in exposing the full existing semantics. New tools will forever have to make special accomodations to interpret this crud correctly just because the old ones were inadequate at some point in time. I understand that the TB API can’t just be changed to accommodate this either… it’s a difficult problem. But I’d prefer if some more thought went into how to proceed, rather than just going forward with whatever’s expedient. I might be more comfortable if using `plan add` counted as an assertion itself, so it would *always* emit a test result, and you’d get N extra tests (properly accounted for in the plan, of course) if you called `plan add` N times. I’m stil unhappy with the idea, but at least that leads to less variability in the output, reducing the amount of cleverness required to correctly interpret the resulting streams. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
