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/"
