Adrian forgot to send this to the list.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Do we need subtests in TAP? Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:14:31 +0100 From: Adrian Howard <adri...@quietstars.com> To: Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> Hey there, On 26 Oct 2011, at 04:56, Michael G Schwern wrote: > I understand wanting "blocks of tests" and the ability to make plans for just > those blocks, but do we need a discrete test state for that? For example, > Test::Class provides most of what subtests provide without special support. ... and to do that T::C contains a bunch of annoying special case code than is (I think) still wrong in an odd corner case. Everybody who wants to do the things T::C does will also have to do that work. T::C implemented with subtests is _much_ cleaner code. There may be other ways of getting that complexity out of T::C (and similar) and into Test::Builder of course - but I'm not 100% sure what you're suggesting... > It occurred to me because most other testing systems don't have subtests. > They have test methods, but those aren't treated as a sub-state of the test. Some do have different levels of hierarchy though. (e.g. JUnit's Test Case / Suite distinction). > In essence, a "subtest" is nothing more than a block of tests with a name and > it's own plan. The special TAP formatting seems unnecessary. I guess that's > the real question, do we need the special TAP formatting or do we just need > named test blocks with their own plan? One thing subtests TAP formatting gives you is a simple way to nest TAP streams from elsewhere. Any other system would mean you have to rewrite the nested stream (I think?) Cheers, Adrian -- Who invented the eponym?
