On 3/7/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2007, at 13:01, Eric Hacker wrote:
> Exit code or Status code?
Well let's generalise it and discuss the specifics: "any useful
information that's available when the test script terminates"
Ok
> The RFC Status codes might not be a perfect fit for test status, but
> like the SIP protocol, they can be reworked to something compatible
> and generally recognizable. Everyone knows that a 404 is bad.
That's an extra layer of complexity. What benefits does it bring?
any useful information ... :)
If the testing is distributed, who ordered the test? If the result
collector ordered the test, then it would likely want to know the
difference between the test failed from a network problem than from a
code problem than from a permissions problem.
Look at CPAN testers. The lack of an installed module vs all the
prereqs are installed and it still won't work on this system is not
distinguished. Granted, the module test suite should handle that
better itself, so maybe this shouldn't come up, but it does.
I think this extra layer of complexity is required for functional
testing. It may not be for just testing Perl. I have way more
experience testing and breaking functionality than developing. I'm
sure if you ever get a look at my code, this will be clear. I'll leave
it up to the pros to decide what is really necessary for Perl.
I think it was Ovid who recently called it the Test Anything Protocol.
If really what is desired, then some additional complexity is
required.
Meanwhile, I'll adapt HTTP::Status::is_success and is_error to
formulate a correct test result from my test status codes, and if more
is ever needed, I've already got it.
Peace,
Hacker
