On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
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.
+1
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.
That would have to go for `use Test::More tests => 4;`, too. That
would mean 5 tests. Personally I'm not too keen on this idea, but
agree that at least then it would be consistent with Schwern's
proposal for `plan add`.
Best,
David
