Michael G Schwern wrote:
How about
diag Failure\n. Or even levels of keywords debug/info/notice/warning/
err/crit/alert/emerg (stolen from syslog.h).
That's an interesting idea. My worry is making it human readable.
not ok 2
err Test failed in foo.t line 2
err got: foo
err
--- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That should be this:
1..5
ok 1
ok 2 #---
-
fnurk: skib
ponk: gleeb
-
bar: krup
foo: plink
...
ok 3
So we have this:
not ok 2 #---
-
line: 17
test: ok $foo;
...
How do you mark that as a TODO test?
not ok 2 #
--- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ovid wrote:
So we have this:
not ok 2 #---
-
line: 17
test: ok $foo;
...
Why do you keep putting everything in an array?
Doesn't have to be an array. That was a Hungry Man TAP Dinner Serving
Suggestion (for non-US
Test-Run-Plugin-AlternateInterpreters version 0.0101 was uploaded to the CPAN
today:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Run-Plugin-AlternateInterpreters/
This is a plugin for Test-Run and an accompanying Test-Run-CmdLine plugin that
enable one to specify alternate interpreters for running the
--- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I chose #--- because 1) its backwards compatible as long as you
ignore unknown
directives and 2) it allows TAP to stream. Otherwise its pretty damn
inelegant. We could say that a name ending in --- indicates a
forthcoming TAP
stream...
not
On 16 Mar 2007, at 07:53, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
I don't know if we need all 8 levels used in syslog. I'm not sure
where the
distinction comes between Emergency, Alert, Critical and
Error when it
comes to testing. But its a good start. Some undefined levels we
can define
On 16 Mar 2007, at 02:52, Michael G Schwern wrote:
That should be this:
1..5
ok 1
ok 2 #---
-
fnurk: skib
ponk: gleeb
-
bar: krup
foo: plink
...
ok 3
Isn't that putting schematically important info in the comment (the
-- of the #). I know we already do it for TODO, but I thought
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Friday 16 March 2007 02:59 am:
I chose #--- because 1) its backwards compatible as long as you ignore
unknown directives and 2) it allows TAP to stream. Otherwise its
pretty damn inelegant. We could say that a name ending in ---
indicates a forthcoming TAP
Adrian Howard wrote:
Maybe use the levels from Log4J, Log::Log4perl, et al?
fatal
error
warn
info
debug
Ok, maybe take that and tailor it more to testing. Here it is in order of
severity. The recommended display level would be warn.
fatal !!!
There's an error in the TAP producer
On 16 Mar 2007, at 04:34, Michael G Schwern wrote:
That's the situation I'm trying to avoid, I'd like TAP to stream
without
needing any sort of look-ahead. So the marker indicating there
diagnostics
forthcoming about this test goes on the same line as the test
itself. The
parser can know
On 16 Mar 2007, at 08:08, Ovid wrote:
How do you mark that as a TODO test?
not ok 2 # TODO don't know what $foo is #---
Anyone see a problem with that?
It's certainly starting to look as if # is a bit over-overloaded.
Looks messy if nothing else.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
On 16 Mar 2007, at 09:59, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Or someone can make a convincing argument that the streaming case
isn't that
important and we can just put the --- on the next line.
Well you rarely have to wait /that/ long for something else to come
along...
--
Andy Armstrong,
Lately I've been hammering hard on every TAP proposal asking why this, why not
that, why do you think this, what about that, is this really going to be a
problem, isn't that situation a little far fetched, not that's not going to
work because... and I get really excited and ruthless about beating
* Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-16 11:55]:
fatal !!!
fail !!
warn !
notice
pass !!!
info !!
debug !
The most bangs I can count instantly by looking at them is four.
For five bangs and up, all I see is “lots of bangs.” I have to
count
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
The most bangs I can count instantly by looking at them is four.
For five bangs and up, all I see is “lots of bangs.” I have to
count character by character to tell them apart. Visually,
I can’t distinguish `fatal` from `fail` at all. Another problem
is that I’d never
* Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-17 01:35]:
Its really not clear what levels !?, ?, X!!X and @ would mean,
or even that they're log messages, without looking it up.
I suppose that’s true, although that situation is not really
different from the bangs.
* Michael G Schwern [EMAIL
16 matches
Mail list logo
