Re: TODO - MAYBE tests?
Eric Wilhelm wrote: Since we're on the subject of CPAN::Reporter, TAP::Harness, Test::More, and TODO wrt failure vs. no-noise vs. report-back vs. await-dependency and the binaryism of failure and etc... Perhaps a general sort of MAYBE namespace in TAP would be a nice addition. Is this a joke? I hope it's a joke. -- There will be snacks.
Re: TODO - MAYBE tests?
# from Michael G Schwern # on Wednesday 05 December 2007 05:47: Perhaps a general sort of MAYBE namespace in TAP would be a nice addition. Is this a joke? I hope it's a joke. Do I look like I'm joking? :-| As it is, we're talking about detecting/reporting a 3rd thing, which only increases the resolution by 50%. If there are really $n, perhaps just jump straight to $n and skip that 4th, 5th, 6th, ... process? You don't have to call it MAYBE -- is that what makes it hard to take seriously? --Eric -- I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day. --E.B. White --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
TODO - MAYBE tests?
Since we're on the subject of CPAN::Reporter, TAP::Harness, Test::More,
and TODO wrt failure vs. no-noise vs. report-back vs. await-dependency
and the binaryism of failure and etc...
Perhaps a general sort of MAYBE namespace in TAP would be a nice
addition. The MAYBE block has a key associated with it (similar to the
$TODO = some string, but acting as an identifier.)
MAYBE: {
local $MAYBE = whizbang: WhizBang v1.1 should be out any day now;
...normal testing code goes here...
}
That would use all of the $1 from qr/^(\w+):/ (or something) to
report 'whizbang' in TAP. Say, if all of 'whizbang' pass, it is
reported, otherwise silent?
Or maybe the Test::More API implements only a few specific forms of
MAYBE such as the TODO[1], MeGotNoVMS, and AnyDayNow blocks.
(Do we need an AnyDayNow which distinguishes awaiting perl 5.x
from awaiting PPI 2.0?)
As it is, we're talking about detecting/reporting a 3rd thing, which
only increases the resolution by 50%. If there are really $n, perhaps
just jump straight to $n and skip that 4th, 5th, 6th, ... process?
[1] -- Yeah, I'm suggesting to normalize TODO into a MAYBE -- makes TAP
not backwards-compatible? Well, maybe that means the protocol can't
normalize, but the TAP::Harness API sure could.
--Eric
--
Moving pianos is dangerous.
Moving pianos are dangerous.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
---
http://scratchcomputing.com
---
Re: TODO - MAYBE tests?
Eric Wilhelm wrote: # from Michael G Schwern # on Wednesday 05 December 2007 05:47: Perhaps a general sort of MAYBE namespace in TAP would be a nice addition. Is this a joke? I hope it's a joke. Do I look like I'm joking? :-| As it is, we're talking about detecting/reporting a 3rd thing, which only increases the resolution by 50%. If there are really $n, perhaps just jump straight to $n and skip that 4th, 5th, 6th, ... process? You don't have to call it MAYBE -- is that what makes it hard to take seriously? Yes. It makes my trick ambiguity in testing is bad knee act up. I'll go tie my leg down and reread the proposal. -- I am somewhat preoccupied telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down. -- Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html
