Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-03-01 Thread Peter Kay
Michael G Schwern wrote: Is it possible to standardize this, so a generic harness knows which test a comment line acctually describes? I'm going to call a big, fat YAGNI on this one for the time being. It requires a change to both the protocol and testing libraries for a minimal organizational

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-25 Thread Joe Schaefer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G Schwern) writes: [...] More to the point is its completely unstructured output that comes not as part of the test but between them. It might be worthwhile to associate that unstructured output with a particular test (either the previous ok/not ok line, or the

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-25 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:22:33AM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote: More to the point is its completely unstructured output that comes not as part of the test but between them. It might be worthwhile to associate that unstructured output with a particular test (either the previous ok/not ok

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-24 Thread Joe Schaefer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes: On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:42 PM, chromatic wrote: The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there a reason for this beyond It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the appropriate test numbers? (I agree with that, but I'm willing

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-24 Thread Geoffrey Young
Joe Schaefer wrote: we should be able to communicate TAP via HTTP, SMTP, etc.). TAP::Lite anyone? /me ducks ;) --Geoff

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-24 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 06:42:57PM -0800, chromatic wrote: The TAP documentation in 2.47_01 says: A harness must only read TAP output from standard output and not from standard error. The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there a reason for this beyond

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-24 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:05:13PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote: The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there a reason for this beyond It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the appropriate test numbers? (I agree with that, but I'm willing to take my chances on

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-24 Thread David Wheeler
On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to capture STDERR? No, all my patch did was turn off buffering in the same way that Test::Builder does. Regards, David

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-24 Thread chromatic
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 14:19 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote: Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to capture STDERR? I redid that patch, removing that dubious feature, and I think Andy applied the second version. T::H::S now interprets any diagnostics and associates

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-23 Thread Andy Lester
A harness must only read TAP output from standard output and not from standard error. I wasn't considering the diagnostics to necessarily be TAP output. They're allowed, but not necessary to the running of the test. xoa -- Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance

Re: TAP and STDERR

2005-02-23 Thread David Wheeler
On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:42 PM, chromatic wrote: The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there a reason for this beyond It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the appropriate test numbers? (I agree with that, but I'm willing to take my chances on certain occasions.)