demerphq wrote:
> Id prefer we find a different solution. Im not sure what it is, but
> having the tests all run in one block is a very desirable feature.
> What you are saying is that to know what is broken we have to review
> many test summaries, this sound sensible if you are thinking about
> tests only being broken in your module, but its not sensible when a
> core change has broken a nice chunk of the modules out there. You want
> to be able to look at one summary at the bottom of all the failures.
> Reviewing a stack of summaries with different counts and etc doesnt
> sound fun.
Eh, we already have to search around in that huge list of test results anyway
to get results. It's not like this is going to be much worse. We already
deal with a similar issue when building the ext modules. In the case of ext's
tests, they're all going to be outputting in the same format to it's not like
we're introducing some wild west of tests here.
But, like I said, the formatting can probably be improved. We've got a known
version of Test::Harness and can play with HARNESS_OPTIONS to transparently
tinker with TAP::Harness.
If we use the traditional make subtest setup, testing will stop once the first
ext module fails. While this would certainly make them easier to find, this
is probably not desirable given the Perl tradition of always running all
tests. A small wrapper would need to be put in place to ensure all the tests
run.
The important thing is the core change from running the ext/ tests manually to
using each module's own "make test". This will make integrating and
developing dual life modules far easier by eliminating a key difference in how
ext/ and CPAN modules are developed.
--
94. Crucifixes do not ward off officers, and I should not test that.
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
