Shlomi Fish wrote: > On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote: >> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote: >>> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test >>> harness. >> No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful. >> > > I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are you > implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different test > harnesses to process such test outputs? (I'm just guessing.) > > Wouldn't that imply duplicate code, duplicate functionality and/or duplicate > effort? Shouldn't we try to avoid that by making sure that we have one *good* > test harness codebase that can be customised using plug-ins, and extensions?
How about a good TAP parser module that does nothing but parse TAP. Then it could be used in all kinds of test harness permutations. -- Michael Peters Developer Plus Three, LP
