Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Michael G Schwern wrote: So, we seem to have drifted from the topic of test groups over to this topic of future proofing against broken versions and TAP producer / parser version negotiation. I have a simple solution for this. If all we do is argue about TAP extensions and never actually produce one we will never have to worry about new versions! Brilliant! I'm a god damned genius. And it seems that we're steady on track on this one, batting 1.000 since May 2001. [1] Point is, its a little premature to worry about future proofing TAP against versioning mistakes when we're not producing new versions! I said last week that I'm worried about how much time has been spend talking about TAP extensions and so little actually writing code and I'm serious. There are four tasks to be done. Andy Armstrong has done one. Andy, Ovid and Eric are working on TAP::Parser. There's been one edit to the TAP spec, which I suspect was done by Andy. Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the TAP spec) and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection. Regards, Shlomi Fish And nothing done to work on the TAP diagnostic syntax, easily the most pressing new TAP feature. I'm not even going to address the issue further, consider it shelved until we get a TAP extension implemented. [1] Technically Andy Armstrong went ahead and actually implemented the TAP version spec in TAP::Parser breaking our perfect record. Boo! ;) -- - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://www.shlomifish.org/ Chuck Norris wrote a complete Perl 6 implementation in a day but then destroyed all evidence with his bare hands, so no one will know his secrets. ---BeginMessage--- Hi Andy! I went over TAP.pm and corrected some typos. Here's the patch. Regards, Shlomi Fish - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://www.shlomifish.org/ Chuck Norris wrote a complete Perl 6 implementation in a day but then destroyed all evidence with his bare hands, so no one will know his secrets. --- TAP.pm.orig 2007-03-10 10:19:23.585295498 + +++ TAP.pm 2007-03-10 10:27:52.886318909 + @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ TAP, the Test Anything Protocol, is Perl's simple text-based interface between testing modules such as Test::More and a test harness such as -Test::Harness 2.x or TAP::Harness 3.x. +Test::Harness 2.x or TAP::Harness. =head1 THE TAP FORMAT @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ The plan tells how many tests will be run, or how many tests have run. It's a check that the test file hasn't stopped prematurely. It must -appear once, whether at the beginning or end of the output. +appear once, whether at the beginning or at the end of the output. The plan is usually the first line of TAP output and it specifies how many test points are to follow. For example, @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ point. C/^ok/ is a successful test point. This is the only mandatory part of the line. -Note that unlike the Directives below, Cok and Cnot ok are +Note that unlike the directives below, Cok and Cnot ok are case-sensitive. =item * Test number @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ =head2 Got spare tuits? -The following example reports that four tests are run and the last two +The following example reports that four tests were run and the last two tests failed. However, because the failing tests are marked as things to do later, they are considered successes. Thus, a harness should report this entire listing as a success. ---End Message---
Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature
On 13 Mar 2007, at 07:39, Shlomi Fish wrote: Point is, its a little premature to worry about future proofing TAP against versioning mistakes when we're not producing new versions! I said last week that I'm worried about how much time has been spend talking about TAP extensions and so little actually writing code and I'm serious. There are four tasks to be done. Andy Armstrong has done one. Andy, Ovid and Eric are working on TAP::Parser. There's been one edit to the TAP spec, which I suspect was done by Andy. Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the TAP spec) and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection. Different Andys I think. -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature
On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote: Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the TAP spec) and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection. Dude, two days in patch land is teeny. Applied, thank you. xoa -- Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature
On 3/13/07, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote: Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the TAP spec) and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection. Dude, two days in patch land is teeny. Applied, thank you. You're welcome. Regards, Shlomi Fish xoa -- Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance -- -- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ If his programming is anything like his philosophising, he would find 10 imaginary bugs in the Hello World program.
Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature
So, we seem to have drifted from the topic of test groups over to this topic of future proofing against broken versions and TAP producer / parser version negotiation. I have a simple solution for this. If all we do is argue about TAP extensions and never actually produce one we will never have to worry about new versions! Brilliant! I'm a god damned genius. And it seems that we're steady on track on this one, batting 1.000 since May 2001. [1] Point is, its a little premature to worry about future proofing TAP against versioning mistakes when we're not producing new versions! I said last week that I'm worried about how much time has been spend talking about TAP extensions and so little actually writing code and I'm serious. There are four tasks to be done. Andy Armstrong has done one. Andy, Ovid and Eric are working on TAP::Parser. There's been one edit to the TAP spec, which I suspect was done by Andy. And nothing done to work on the TAP diagnostic syntax, easily the most pressing new TAP feature. I'm not even going to address the issue further, consider it shelved until we get a TAP extension implemented. [1] Technically Andy Armstrong went ahead and actually implemented the TAP version spec in TAP::Parser breaking our perfect record. Boo! ;)
Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature
On 12 Mar 2007, at 23:49, Michael G Schwern wrote: And nothing done to work on the TAP diagnostic syntax, easily the most pressing new TAP feature. I've been thinking about that today. I've got other stuff today tomorrow and Wednesday but my plan was to get some code out by the end of the week so we can start playing with it. -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature
# from Michael G Schwern # on Monday 12 March 2007 04:49 pm: If all we do is argue about TAP extensions and never actually produce one we will never have to worry about new versions! That's a good plan. To implement it, we really need a committee. Perhaps perl-qa is a little overwhelmed with this sort of traffic. We've already got a tapx-dev list, but perhaps we should form a tap-design-committee-formation-committee list (of course, we may first need to form a committee to decide on an acronym for the committee formation committee.) --Eric -- Insert random misquote here --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
