On 4/18/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Test.Simple—JavaScript. It looks and acts just like tap, although in > > reality it's tracking test results in an object rather than scraping > > them from a print buffer. > > > > http://openjsan.org/doc/t/th/theory/Test/Simple/ > > Tracking the results in an object is a better choice than scraping from > a print buffer. One of the frustrating issues with Perl's testing > tools is the limited flexibility we have due to reading the output from > STDOUT.
One other reason (that I didn't see mentioned) is that objects imply that the harness and tests are in the same process which means that the tests can corrupt the harness and that the harness can fail to report if the test process dies, F > > The TAP output should really just be for humans. It should also be > reconfigurable, but obviously we can't do that because Test::Harness > would choke. > > Since it looks like we're going to stick with reading information from > a print buffer, we should at least publish an EBNF grammar for the > output. (Interestingly, if we did that, we could potentially > incorporate that into Test::Harness and allow folks to provide their > own grammars and thus structure the output to better suit their needs. > Of course, I would like a Ponie with that, too). > > Cheers, > Ovid > > -- > If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send > follow up questions to the list. > > Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ >
