On 2011.10.30 11:15 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote: > # from Michael G Schwern > # on Sunday 30 October 2011 20:30: > >> The current Test::Builder implementation is a mess and its design >> cannot go forward. They have to be gotten just right to ensure that >> not just nested TAP is supported, but nesting in other formats. Or >> if those formats don't have nesting, then linearizing the subtests in >> those formats. And event watcher (ie. plugins) authors have to be >> shielded from the complexity. > > Maybe have a null or default handler for the subtests -- possibly > allowing authors to use a base class or role which gives them a > subtest_start() returning the null handler and subtest_end() which just > forwards the summary as a single test event. > > Is there a second format being implemented to test this API?
There's five. TAP v13, POSIX, Null, PlusMinus and SimpleHTML. [1] [2] Of them all, TAP is the one that's most fleshed out. POSIX has proven most useful as a disparate format. I would love to see a formatter for Jenkins/JUnit, [3] that would probably be the most useful and interesting. I'd also love to see one that just spat out events as a list of JSON objects [4], useful both for debugging and as a lossless format for communicating to a harness. [1] https://github.com/schwern/test-more/tree/Test-Builder1.5/lib/Test/Builder2/Formatter [2] https://github.com/schwern/test-more/blob/Test-Builder1.5/examples/TB2/lib/TB2/Formatter/SimpleHTML.pm [3] https://github.com/schwern/test-more/issues/158 [4] https://github.com/schwern/test-more/issues/159 -- 24. Must not tell any officer that I am smarter than they are, especially if it's true. -- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army http://skippyslist.com/list/
