On Mar 7, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Repeat after me, "We cannot predict how TAP will be used".
That's why it's the "Test Anything Protocol". The A is Anything!
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Stop. Stop stop stop! Stop right there.
Umm, people might not realize that I tend to be a bit over dramatic and
didn't actually mean to shut down the discussion.
On 8 Mar 2007, at 21:55, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Stop. Stop stop stop! Stop right there.
Umm, people might not realize that I tend to be a bit over dramatic
and
didn't actually mean to shut down the discussion.
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy". O
On 8 Mar 2007, at 22:47, Eric Hacker wrote:
I propose that we prefix lines from STDERR with '! ' in the same way
that '# ' is used for diagnostics. wstat and exit can just be
wstat 256
exit 1
How about this?
wstat: 256
exit: 1
YAML, YAML, do!
Doesn't look like TAP though :)
--
Andy A
I propose that we prefix lines from STDERR with '! ' in the same way
that '# ' is used for diagnostics. wstat and exit can just be
wstat 256
exit 1
The problem with STDERR and exit is that we can't actually use them for
anything significant.
Otherwise when dealing with TAP streams that don
On 9 Mar 2007, at 00:28, Adam Kennedy wrote:
I propose that we prefix lines from STDERR with '! ' in the same
way that '# ' is used for diagnostics. wstat and exit can just be
wstat 256
exit 1
The problem with STDERR and exit is that we can't actually use them
for anything significant.
W
On 3/8/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I propose that we prefix lines from STDERR with '! ' in the same way
that '# ' is used for diagnostics. wstat and exit can just be
wstat 256
exit 1
How about this?
wstat: 256
exit: 1
YAML, YAML, do!
;)
On 9 Mar 2007, at 01:44, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Like I said, we can't use them for anything that matters :)
It's just occurred to me that it makes it easier to write tests for
the harness too :)
I can't quite get my head round the objection to the idea that a TAP
transcript could be a comple
On 3/8/07, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andy Armstrong wrote:
>> Otherwise when dealing with TAP streams that don't have a concept of
>> an exit code or a seperate error channel, the most common example
>> being web testing, we're left high and dry.
>
> In which case you'd just omit th
Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2007, at 22:47, Eric Hacker wrote:
>>> I propose that we prefix lines from STDERR with '! ' in the same way
>>> that '# ' is used for diagnostics. wstat and exit can just be
>>>
>>> wstat 256
>>> exit 1
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>> wstat: 256
>> exit: 1
>>
>> YAML,
Adam Kennedy wrote:
>> I propose that we prefix lines from STDERR with '! ' in the same way
>> that '# ' is used for diagnostics. wstat and exit can just be
>>
>> wstat 256
>> exit 1
>
> The problem with STDERR and exit is that we can't actually use them for
> anything significant.
>
> Otherwise
On Friday 09 March 2007 14:50, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> We can leverage any existing status system we want. HTTP status. Exit
> status. Throw them all in! Don't find TAP's existing statuses rich
> enough? Add your own extension keys! A particular status code not make
> sense for your ap
chromatic wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2007 14:50, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>> We can leverage any existing status system we want. HTTP status. Exit
>> status. Throw them all in! Don't find TAP's existing statuses rich
>> enough? Add your own extension keys! A particular status code not
13 matches
Mail list logo
