* Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-01 15:15]: > Sounds to me like it should just be a custom test harness. If > the user needs to dynamically figure out which tests to run, > then why not create a custom harness which will do what they > need.
I was going to say the same. Then it occured to me that if you want to make such a harness reusable and you want to make the test plans introspectable, then such a harness needs to parse some sort of config. Which is very nearly what TSP is. I just don’t see the “protocol” part. I’d rather think of it in terms of the Test Plan Configuration format, and that this be something specific to TAP::Harness rather than documented widely as something common to TAP implementations. It veers into operational questions that I don’t think are applicable to every scenario where TAP is in use. Because… > This way they can have control over not only which files to > run, but which routines (if they're using Test::Class), etc, > etc. … TAP encompasses scenarios where the notion of files and test routines doesn’t even compute. > Writing your own harness is trivial now. I'd say writing > something to emit a new protocol is no easier than writing a > script that picks the test files/subs to run. Agree. Putting this sort of functionality in the default harness *is* a good idea so people don’t need to reinvent a common wheel, and so you can use a declarative language to define this sort of thing. But just make this a config for TAP::Harness. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
