How gross would it be just to have a logical channel in TAP that
could represent output to STDERR? That plus the exit status of the
test script is pretty much all you have at the moment. Would that be
so bad?

Perhaps, for non-Unix testing, perhaps not.

Here is what I have. There are bots that are running on various
systems. One asks the bot to do something, and it responds. My bots
are being set up to do testing things. Can you ping the server, can
you open a TCP connection to port 80, can you get a URL over HTTP,
can you run this script, etc.

The idea is that without a traditional debugger, there should be a
command line user interface that does these things as well as an RPC
method for automated tests. When I send an RPC response, it has the
human readable reply and the response code. Sure, I could have written
a regex to figure out if the response is correct of failed, and I
allow that. It is easier to process the codes though, and that
suffices for most tests. Sure all of this could have been done in SSH,
if everyone had account on and the machines and etc.

There are other ways, this is what I'm trying to do and I may fail.
Then you all can learn from my 409, 416 or 417.

Now, I know you are thinking about exit status on test scripts and I'm
thinking individual tests (of which running another test script might
be an instance), but in the distributed functional testing space, one
really can't rely on independent test scripts to do much.

I need to set up a tail with regex on a log file on one bot, hit it
from another bot, and know that both were successful real time. Then
keep going.

Now if all TAP can handle is Perl, or even just code output, then
those of us pushing the envelope will eventually migrate to some other
test output format.

Functional testing is years behind, especially testing distributed
applications like network security. I'm trying to leverage what I can
to get something useful working. Perl and Test::Harness seem to be
good tools to try.

Reply via email to