* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-01 15:50]: > The config needs to be dynamic at test time - so it might as > well be a script that runs and outputs a description of which > tests to run, right?
But it only needs to be dynamic in a minority of cases. So it seems to me it should be the other way around – rather than run a script to emit the config, have a config that has a directive to run a script and include its output as part of the config. That makes it easier for other tools to analyse the test configs. > So isn't that nearly TSP? :) In some ways. I just don’t think the harness should look at the output of tests to check if it’s TSP rather than TAP. The list of tests to run should be determined up front, and the test scripts should only ever output TAP. Mixing them with scripts that output TSP feels like a confusion of concerns to me. For the configs there are also a number of issues like dealing well with multiple possible configurations and resolution of relative paths (esp. in compound configs). I think this needs a little bit more design. And since YAML is making its way into TAP anyway, maybe it should be YAML-based rather than a completely ad-hoc TAPish format? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
