Michael Peters wrote:
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
harness.
No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are you
implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different test
harnesses to process such test outputs? (I'm just guessing.)
Wouldn't that imply duplicate code, duplicate functionality and/or duplicate
effort? Shouldn't we try to avoid that by making sure that we have one *good*
test harness codebase that can be customised using plug-ins, and extensions?
How about a good TAP parser module that does nothing but parse TAP. Then
it could be used in all kinds of test harness permutations.
And of course, we also need TAP::SAX :)
Sort of a funny, but it probably should be written, since SAX is a nice
standardised event model with plenty of existing code. (hence Perl::SAX
and Pod::SAX et al).
Adam K
