On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ovid <curtis_ovid_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Moving along, the *idea* of a nested TAP is so conceptually simple that if
> the implementing code is struggling with it, perhaps it's a sign that there
> are some design decisions which should be revisited? When I find conceptually
> simple ideas hard to do, I find it a code smell. (note that I'm not saying
> the actual design is bad. I haven't looked). I also find subtests so
> incredibly convenient and opens up so many possibilities that I would hate to
> lose them (and I use them a lot).
Without looking at the actual code, I would guess that the complexity
is implementing subtests while preserving the legacy procedural
interface that wraps calls to a global singleton.
Conceptually, this doesn't seem hard:
my $t = Test::SuperDooper->new;
$t->is(...);
$t->subtest( $label => sub {
my $t = shift;
$t->is(...);
);
$t->done_testing;
Tests would be recorded in an object and subtest subroutines get
passed a (new) test object.
But that's *not* the Test::More interface we all know and love so the
interface has to fake that with globals/local() that we can all
imagine (even without going to the code). So that design decision is
sort of forced due to the API.
I agree that given the existence of nested TAP now, I wouldn't want to
see it removed, so I'm not sure what complexity Schwern is looking to
eliminate -- whether it's existing complexity or potential new
complexity implementing new features.
-- David
