On 1/31/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 January 2006 12:22, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> Adding more information to the default Test::Harness summary doesn't make
> sense to me.  It's a user tool.  It's important to list failures there, as
> the code might not work right, but unexpected successes?  I don't want to
> have to explain those or the implications; I'm not sure it's useful
> information for most users.

I think that mischaracterization how harness is used. Its both a user
and a developer tool. In fact most of the information presented by the
summary is useless to a user except that it gives them something to
mail to the author to say "see this stuff broke".  From a users point
of view a response like "all tests passed" or "not all tests passed"
would be sufficient. All the other information is only useful to the
maintainer.

And I think you've conveniently sidestepped my main point which is
that TODO tests passing are errors. Consider you have two TODO tests,
both of which depend on a common set of functionality. Both should
pass or both should fail. With the current model if one of them passes
its supposed to be a good thing. But its probably not, its probably an
indication of serious error.  But the end user will never know because
harness doesnt consider it an issue, and the author will never know
because the user doesnt have any reason to inform the author. (This is
assuming the spurious TODO passes didnt occur in the authors build
enviornment).

And this issue in particular affects perl. Which is why it should be
changed. Writing custom harnesses is fine for special projects, but im
talking about the mother of all them.

Yves

--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

Reply via email to