chromatic wrote:
On Monday 14 January 2008 15:42:49 Adam Kennedy wrote:
Test::Builder should just do what it's told.
If the code that IS responsible for testing suites tells it to bail on
fail, that's exactly what it should do.
Let me rephrase this in an amusing way which demonstrates how silly this idea
is.
We have a program which runs suites of tests. It does this by spawning new
processes which produce TAP somehow. Some of those processes produce TAP by
using Perl modules which eventually use Test::Builder. Some do not. They
don't have to, because there's a separation between producing TAP and
consuming TAP, by design.
This is why we have a program which runs suites of tests.
Now some people say "If anything which generates TAP generates a TAP failure,
I don't want to run the rest of the test suite." They have plenty of
potential reasons, and those reasons are reasonable reasons.
We do have a program which runs suites of tests. Actually, we can have
several, because one of the goals of writing TAP::Parser which is now much of
the guts of Test::Harness 3.0 is to allow people to write programs which run
suites of TAP producers and consume and aggregate the resulting TAP. The
point is customized behavior.
That's a digression though, because as I understand it the goal of putting
this OH NOES SOMETHING FALLDED!!! logic in Test::Builder is so that the
currently running test file (necessarily Perl, necessarily using
Test::Builder, so see the caveats about neither necessarily being true for
TAP generators) can stop running when it encounters a failure.
Of course, that won't stop a whole test suite from continuing to run. Dot dot
dot.
I'm confused here, but that's probably because I'm not intimate with
T::B and T::H:
=item B<BAIL_OUT>
$Test->BAIL_OUT($reason);
Indicates to the Test::Harness that things are going so badly all
testing should terminate. This includes running any additional test
scripts.
this is what I'm trying to to - generate TAP that communicates with TAP
consumer something along the lines of "yikes, stop what you are doing as
soon as you can." the patch I submitted to Test::Builder just calls
BAIL_OUT() at $time.
I think this is a legitimate thing to communicate between the TAP
producer and TAP consumer, even across disparate languages (which I'm in
the middle of regularly :)
is this not reasonable?
--Geoff
