On 1/21/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 21 Jan 2007, at 13:36, demerphq wrote:
> I dont get this logic.
>
> Why cant something that wants to monitor the test process do something
> other than make test?
>
> They can do a make, and or make test-prep or whatever, and then call
> into an alternative test harness framework to monitor the tests.
>
> Can you explain why this is a no-go in more detail?
I'm sure that's possible but I like the simplicity of Adam's proposal
to just dump raw TAP into a file and then feed it back into
TAPx::Parser for subsequent analysis. Is there anything wrong with
that picture?
Scale:
All tests successful (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 56 tests and
579 subtests skipped.
Passed TODO Stat Wstat TODOs Pass List of Passed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
../ext/B/t/optree_constants.t 1 1 28
Files=1351, Tests=177305, 1037 wallclock secs ( 0.00 cusr + 0.00 csys
= 0.00 CPU)
cd ..\win32
Can you imagine the logfile of 177305 tests?
Also how will this stream represent things like "test file
segfaulted", "test file hung and was killed", timing out the test
process, etc. All legitimate cases when dealing with core testing.
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
