On 2011.10.30 2:58 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> I prefer the current subtests system for a few reasons:
>
> * With the new system I would have to re-write TAP streams from other sources
> to match the numbering system of the current stream. This makes more work for
> folk who are pulling in TAP streams from other boxes/processes. If we do go
> this
> route you would, ideally, need to have a "standard" system for
renumbering/counting
> streams.
No, TAP::Harness would continue to parse subtest TAP. TAP from other tests
could still be embedded by simple indentation.
> * I cannot, in a general way, tell the difference between a TAP stream with
> subtests and a linear TAP stream. This means I can do things like easily
> report
> whether certain levels of subtests are passing/failing. I'm using nesting
> because the groups make logical sense. Throwing that information away in the
> TAP output seems a bad thing to me - it's useful to analyse/view the results
> as
> well as organising the tests.
Agreed.
> * With no "standard" way of representing the nesting in the TAP stream output
> - everybody who needs to manage any kind of test grouping / hierarchy has to
> invent their own way of doing it.
True.
> * Test::Block kinda uses this system. Never really used by anybody. subtests
> are already used by lots of folk. I think part of the reason why may be coz
> of the more intention revealing output?
That's part of what I'm trying to discover.
> * How would a no_plan subtest merge into a planned stream?
Just fine, thanks. It would require no work at all. Without the TAP
formatting, a no_plan subtest is equivalent to just running some tests.
--
...they shared one last kiss that left a bitter yet sweet taste in her
mouth--kind of like throwing up after eating a junior mint.
-- Dishonorable Mention, 2005 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest
by Tami Farmer
