Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> [2009-02-20 23:35]:
>> And we come back to the beginning: it's all going to be ad hoc
>> anyway until TAP formalizes it. Fine for eyeballing. If someone
>> wants to scrape the information out they can do it from the
>> description (with the usual caveats about scraping).
>
> What I am saying is that just because they are… *wrinkles nose*
> …scraping [yuck, I feel dirty] doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to
> make it as easy as possible.
>
> Something about cow paths… so do we want those established by the
> scraping plebes or not?
No, their stuff will just break when the formatting changes. Such is the
death of all screen scraping.
>> I plan on doing this:
>
> So you see no way of doing it as a test numbering scheme? I would
> still prefer that…
Let's say we do. How does this let you programmatically detect sub-plans?
What you write:
use Test::More;
subplan(2, "First thing");
pass();
pass();
subplan(1, "Second thing");
pass();
What it might output:
# subplan "First thing"
ok 1
ok 2
# subplan "Second thing"
ok 3
1..3
There's even LESS formal information there than if the subplan() calls are
tests themselves. Worse than scraping test descriptions, you're scraping
comments.
--
Being faith-based doesn't trump reality.
-- Bruce Sterling
