--- Eric Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Given all of this chat, what would folks think about an optional > switch > > to 'runtests' (the TAPx::Parser equivalent to 'prove'), which would > > warn users about which test programs are being run without a plan?
That should have read 'run with a trailing plan' because 'no plan' is a parse failure. A trailing plan generally means the plan is computed from the number of tests run. > Brilliant idea. > > In functional testing, there are situations where one doesn't know > how > many tests will be run. Say I am testing a web site to make sure that > the copyright is included on every page. > I don't want a plan, I just want to know if any pages fail (and which > ones). > > How is this handled with pod checking? The various Test::POD modules generate a plan for you, though you can override this, if needed. > I think making it possible for the lack of a plan to be flagged when > it is important retains Perl's inherent flexibility while supporting > correctness when necessary. I think it would be useful to have another switch which would simply warn about things which aren't, strictly speaking, errors, but which the developer might want to know about: * Trailing plan * Non-TAP output (currently legal but discarded for forward-compatibility reasons) * ??? I have no idea what to name that switch, though, as 'warnings' is already taken to enable warnings in the programs. '--tap-warnings' is probably a decent choice even though I prefer '--squeal-like-a-pig'. (Well, -w and -W are taken, '--warnings' is not, but '--warnings' seems like it would be too confusing) Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
