* Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-15 05:55]:
Whatever standard diagnostic set we dictate, we can't
localise it, so we should be aiming for language which is
maximally clear and comprehendable by non-native speakers.
This is a very good point.
I also think it’s another one where the
To summarize. What TAP uses is irrelevant, as long as it works. What
the Harness prints is relevant, but easy to fix any time. No worries
about TAP 1.0 vs. TAP 1.1, just download the new Test:Harness from CPAN
and everything will work. Right?
Wrong. Well, maybe...
Sometimes it could be
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
They strike me as the teams most intuitively recognizable and least open
to misinterpretation.
Smylers
On 7/12/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset on the screen making it harder to see the failure.
They strike me as
demerphq writes:
On 7/12/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset on the screen making it harder to see the
On 7/13/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq writes:
On 7/12/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset on
On 7/13/06, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
demerphq wrote:
On 7/12/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Landgren writes:
Expected and actual has a long tradition in scientific endeavour,
And are still sucky as they are different lengths meaning the two
outputs are offset
While I agree with David, this argument is almost completely pointless.
Nobody reads the raw TAP output! If you want your TAP harness to
display got and expected, let it. If you want it so say foo and
bar (so they line up :-P), then great.
The actual TAP is going to live in a protocol
Jonathan Rockway wrote:
While I agree with David, this argument is almost completely pointless.
Nobody reads the raw TAP output!
are you serious? listen to what they people here are saying - we _all_
read the raw TAP output, all the time, and not because we're TAP
developers interested in the
On 13/07/06, Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Rockway wrote:
While I agree with David, this argument is almost completely pointless.
Nobody reads the raw TAP output!
are you serious? listen to what they people here are saying - we _all_
read the raw TAP output, all the time,
On Thursday 13 July 2006 08:52, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
Nobody reads the raw TAP output!
I would love to see your TAP diagnostic parser and reporter. I, unfortunately,
don't have one and must read the raw TAP output myself. :)
-- c
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-13 10:50]:
When you first suggested those terms earlier in this thread I
did find that I had to slow down when reading them to work out
which is which.
I had no such slowdown on reading David Landgren's mail.
Same here.
I think it's just that want and
are you serious? listen to what they people here are saying - we _all_
read the raw TAP output, all the time, and not because we're TAP
developers interested in the underlying implementations. as users, the
(current) raw TAP diagnostics helps us figure out why a test failed, and
if it doesn't
On 7/13/06, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are you serious? listen to what they people here are saying - we _all_
read the raw TAP output, all the time, and not because we're TAP
developers interested in the underlying implementations. as users, the
(current) raw TAP
wow, my code is being used in a flame war! *blush* :-)
Sorry! I didn't want this to come across as a flame. I just wanted to
make sure I (and other people ;) have the distinction between TAP and
uses of TAP clear in their minds. The sooner we can agree over what the
protocol should call
Wheeling back over to the extra diagnostic output that Schwern
originally proposed, I agree with Adam in that any additions we make
to TAP must be completely backward-compatible.
I hereby recant my burblings. After reading Adam's replies, I think I
might have pushed the thread in the wrong
* Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-12 06:10]:
Fair enough a Layer 1 TAP parser might not care, but why not
make it as equally easy to implement a Layer 2 parser as
well.
+1
Did you guys consider the problem of newlines in content?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis //
On 7/11/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough a Layer 1 TAP parser might not care, but why not make it
as equally easy to implement a Layer 2 parser as well.
Bingo.
--
Ian Langworth
Jonathan T. Rockway wrote:
I agree that got is generally a good word to avoid in formal writing,
but in a testing protocol I think that it's an acceptable abbreviation
No! Do not accept inferior substitutes, strive for perfection.
for the actual result. Especially since received doesn't
Did you guys consider the problem of newlines in content?
This is a good question. Implementing your own file format means you
have a big-bag-o-quoting problems. How do you print a verbatim
newline? What about a verbatim single quote? What about Unicode? What
about a new line then
* Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-12 17:50]:
Things to think about :)
This is the time in our program where we stop to consider what it
means that DJB, who wrote that advice/rant, also wrote an RFC2822
parser.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Whoa whoa whoa slow down there folks...
Some people seemed to have misrecognised those keys as YAML.
It was NEVER meant to be YAML.
The idea was to use something more like MIME headers.
We all agreed that we DIDN'T want the format to be too heavy, and going
with MIME or MIME-alike seemed the
I can see why we wouldn't want to include YAML, and won't cry for *too
long* if it doesn't go in ;), but here are some reasons why I'd like for
full YAML to be a part of the spec:
- marshaling data structures between the application being tested and
the test harness (strings are nice, but full
- Original Message
From: Adam Kennedy
Whoa whoa whoa slow down there folks...
Some people seemed to have misrecognised those keys as YAML.
It was NEVER meant to be YAML.
The idea was to use something more like MIME headers.
Well, regardless of what those lines are, we
I mentioned YAML with a pretense I failed to mention -- that we
wouldn't parse the YAML. That's already been done, and there are
plenty of parsers.
YAML has clear designations of where it starts and ends. A TAP parser
wouldn't have to look at the diagnostics and guess what it is.
If the data
On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Ian Langworth wrote:
Maybe we don't care. Maybe we can simply add a callback for some
diagnostic_block_analyzer() and, in my own little happy world,
$parser-diagnostic_block_analyzer( sub {
my ($block) = @_;
if ($block =~ m{ \A --- }xs) {
do something
Ian Langworth wrote:
I mentioned YAML with a pretense I failed to mention -- that we
wouldn't parse the YAML. That's already been done, and there are
plenty of parsers.
I agree with this. YAML has been done and done again, in every
language. It works, it's tested. I don't think we need
On 7/11/06, Jonathan T. Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Langworth wrote:
I mentioned YAML with a pretense I failed to mention -- that we
wouldn't parse the YAML. That's already been done, and there are
plenty of parsers.
I agree with this. YAML has been done and done again, in every
- Original Message
From: Jonathan T. Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, if you wanted to make *me* happy ;), why not make the whole
darn thing a YAML stream like this:
snip
---
test: Test whether foo + bar = baz
result: ok
sequence: 1
---
Aside from the fact that many languages
if i recall correctly, syck doesn't handle utf-8/16. does/will tap
care about that?
That's true -- I think Audrey patched the perl version to work properly,
but I forgot that other languages are without that functionality. Ruby
doesn't properly support Unicode either, so Unicode support
Ovid wrote:
- Original Message From: Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What else is TAP targeted to? C / C++ / Java?
PHP tests often use TAP (don't know the name)
almost all of the php test frameworks now offer TAP support - see
Aside from the fact that many languages are already using the TAP protocol and
we'd create something they *don't* use, what happens when my 4,000 test lines
all of a sudden become 16,000 test lines because the format has been changed?
Do you pay for CPU time on a per-newline basis? :)
However, most perl tests don't care about TAP, they use Test::More and
Test::Harness and happen to exchange data via TAP. If Test::More and
Test::Harness decied to use YAP (YAML Anything Protocol? :), then most
applications would probably never notice.
most _perl_ applications would never
On Jul 11, 2006, at 09:21, Ovid wrote:
Java programmers typically use jUnit. C programmers have libtap
available. PHP tests often use TAP (don't know the name) and
Javascript has Test.Simple, though it parses the test results
directly and then outputs TAP (if I recall correctly).
It
Message
From: Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; perl-qa@perl.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:21:33 PM
Subject: Re: TAP diagnostic syntax proposal
- Original Message
From: Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What else is TAP targeted to? C / C++ / Java
Geoffrey Young wrote:
However, most perl tests don't care about TAP, they use Test::More and
Test::Harness and happen to exchange data via TAP. If Test::More and
Test::Harness decied to use YAP (YAML Anything Protocol? :), then most
applications would probably never notice.
most _perl_
The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
file:foo.t
line:45
description: omg t3h sooper test!!1!
got: this
expected:that
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
file:foo.t
line:45
These diagnostic keywords seem to blend too much into the rest of TAP. Consider:
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
! file:foo.t
! line:45
! description: omg t3h sooper test!!1!
! got: this
! expected:that
! raw-test:is( this, that, omg t3h sooper test!!1!
Subject: TAP diagnostic syntax proposal
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:19:03 -0700
}The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
}talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
}
} not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test
On 7/10/06, Ian Langworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These diagnostic keywords seem to blend too much into the rest of TAP.
Look at it in a fixed-with font, if you're not already, and it might
stand out better.
Also consider that with the next gen TAP parsers, enhanced TAP
displays should be
On 7/10/06, Pete Krawczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be concerned about got or expected including embedded
newlines, such as:
is($mech-content,$expected_page,Web page content matches what's expected);
even with a delimiter such as Ian suggested. How would this handle that?
YAML has
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to received?
-- c
On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:34, chromatic wrote:
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to received?
It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about got?
Best,
David
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
--- TAP diagnostics
file:foo.t
Why aren't we commenting the YAML block so that it's compatible with
current TAP parsers? I'm thinking something like this:
not ok 2 - ensure that foo is equal to bar
# --- !!tap/diagnostics
# file: foo.t
# line:
On Monday 10 July 2006 11:41, David Wheeler wrote:
It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about got?
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into your underwear
before trying to get a date at your family reunion.
-- c
On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:59, chromatic wrote:
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into
your underwear
before trying to get a date at your family reunion.
That's the best place to *get* a date!
D
On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Ovid wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to received?
Expected and actual
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
On Jul 10, 2006, at 2:04 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into
your underwear
before trying to get a date at your family reunion.
That's the best place to *get* a date!
Actually, weddings are. There's always someone(s) also w/o a date
prove --secret-ovid-mode ...
On 7/10/06, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message
From: chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to
YAML documents [can] end with a
I like Jonathan's suggestion of making the YAML comments, but my gut
feels funny about that. If the lines are preceeded with hashes, then
it's not true YAML; it has to be stripped of the leading characters.
Also, I'd rather have a TAP directive to state, This
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-10 20:40]:
From: chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to received?
I like pitched and caught.
I’m voting
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:59:27AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 11:41, David Wheeler wrote:
It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about got?
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into your
underwear before trying to get a date at
On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:59:27AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 11:41, David Wheeler wrote:
It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about got?
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into
On 7/11/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 15:28, demerphq wrote:
On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst I would also like to see something nicer that got, I'm actually
more concerned about the ordering. I always expect to see expected
Want: This
Have: That
Put me down for this one too. Simpler for non-English speakers as well.
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to received?
returned?
* Randy W. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-11 01:40]:
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to received?
returned?
Err, it’s what was passed, not what was
Michael G Schwern wrote:
The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
file:foo.t
line:45
description: omg t3h sooper test!!1!
got:
59 matches
Mail list logo
