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 expected: bar > ok 3 > > It doesn't leap out at you the way something like this does. > > not ok 2 > !!! Test failed in foo.t line 2 > !!! got: foo > !!! expected: bar > ok 3
What if the number of bangs indicated the severity level? We already do this thing things like: !!!!!!!!!! REALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!! 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 later seems like a good idea, leaves some wiggle room in the protocol. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3164 Numerical Severity Code 0 Emergency: system is unusable 1 Alert: action must be taken immediately 2 Critical: critical conditions 3 Error: error conditions 4 Warning: warning conditions 5 Notice: normal but significant condition 6 Informational: informational messages 7 Debug: debug-level messages We would, of course, invert the numerics. Granted, syslog is pretty old technology. Anyone familiar with the current thinking on this sort of stuff?
