Ovid wrote: > Summary: if your TAP suddenly jumps from test #2 to test #29, > Test::Harness reports that tests #3 through #28 have 'failed'. > > TAPx::Harness does not report them as failures, but as parse errors > (because it's bad TAP). Is a 'parse error' a reasonable compromise?
Technically its a parse error, but its not what a user would think of as a parse error. They're missing, report them as missing. That's what the user wants to know. That's what will help them correct what's going wrong. A parse error could mean anything, it could mean there's a bug in the testing library. We should probably specify what to do with a missing test in TAP anyway.
