I may have missed the point here, but would it be sufficient to have two flavours of diagnostic calls, distinguishing between pre-test diagnostics (`forewarn()`) and post-test diagnostics (`reflect()`), or is the problem that ok() must be a single function call?
If that's possible, maybe we can extend it to guess at what the various messages mean: most diags can be assumed to be of the `reflect()` type, as that's typical behaviour, e.g. Test::More, while more perlish warnings is most likely to be of the `forewarn()` variety. Daniel On 10 July 2012 19:11, Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2012.6.1 5:40 AM, Steffen Schwigon wrote: >> I am about to upload Test::TAPv13. I also did an prepan entry for that. >> >> PrePAN: http://prepan.org/module/429En4oFbn . >> URL: https://github.com/renormalist/Test-TAPv13 >> Synopsis: >> >> use Test::TAPv13 ':all'; # must come before Test::More >> use Test::More tests => 2; >> >> my $data = { affe => { tiger => 111, >> birne => "amazing", >> loewe => [ qw( 1 two three) ], >> }, >> zomtec => "here's another one", >> "DrWho" => undef, >> }; >> >> ok(1, "hot stuff"); >> tap13_yaml($data); >> tap13_pragma "+strict"; >> ok(1, "more hot stuff"); >> >> Does it make sense? >> Did I overlook an existing way to generate TAP v13? > > I'm just seeing this now. The output looks correct and I'm happy to see > somebody playing with the structured diagnostics for reals! There's a few > code nits, but I'll note them on github. > > Test::Builder1.5 can generate TAP v13, in fact it does so by default, but is > currently lacking the structured diagnostics part. Part of this is just > time/effort, but the larger part is with how tests are written... > > The problem with... > > ok( ... ); > diagnostics( ... ); > > Is that there's no reliable way to know that diagnostics() goes with the > previous ok(). This is ok for TAP, where the test result and diagnostics are > on separate lines and can be printed separately, but other formats need to > print out the results and diagnostics together. Like anything where the > diagnostics information is inside a <result> tag, for example. > > That pattern has to be rethought. This was one of the goals of Test::Builder2 > (the new class to replace Test::Builder) but that is on hold. Any thoughts? > > Also, when did we add the pragma thing? > > > -- > The interface should be as clean as newly fallen snow and its behavior > as explicit as Japanese eel porn.
