stevedlawrence commented on issue #811: URL: https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/issues/811#issuecomment-1785738896
To me, it feels like a separate artifact makes more sense. Including the actual output in a TDML file, whether it be a stack trace or an incorrect infoset, just adds more complication to an already complicated format. It's usually pretty straightforward to run a TDML file to reproduce the unexpected issue. It also adds complication, for example, you would need to run your TDML test, capture the output, and then modify that same TDML file. There's a chance that modification might accidentally change the test (e.g. copy/paste to the wrong spot) and make it not reproducible. If you really want it in the TDML file, maybe it could be added as a comment or as an annotation or something, but I'm not sure I would want it as something the TDML runner understands and uses in any way. Like, even if the TDML runner saw the same stack trace, it still wouldn't want to consider it as a test pass. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
