"Michael G Schwern" wrote in perl.qa :
> * What about Test::Harness?
>
> Test::Harness remains its own thing.
>
> At some point in the future Test::Harness will likely be gutted and
> turned into a thin wrapper around TAP::Harness. I'm not caring about
> this right now.
What about prove(1) ? Are
On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > There's no way to declare a top-level plan. That is, I can't say how
>> > many groups of tests I'm going to run so there's effectively no plan,
>>
>> One point that
On Sunday 02 July 2006 23:37, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > The most up-to-date Test-Run code is here:
> >
> > http://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/web-cpan/Test-Harness-NG/
> >
> > I don't mind giving Subversion access to the repository to anyone who
> > registers in http://developer.berlios.de/ and is e
Hi all,
I would still like to be in a position to write a grammar for TAP, but I've
heard no answers to my questions. Should I assume that a formal grammar is not
wanted/desired at this point?
Cheers,
Ovid
-- If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send
follow
That seems like a problem too but the one I'm trying to get at is
4 no plan, with groups
If your script exits prematurely after one of the groups, the harness
will not notice because everything looks just fine. The solution to
this is not to use "plan, with groups" because then you have to coun
On 3 Jul 2006, at 13:56, Adam Kennedy wrote:
That seems like a problem too but the one I'm trying to get at is
4 no plan, with groups
If your script exits prematurely after one of the groups, the
harness
will not notice because everything looks just fine. The solution to
this is not to use
If we don't have some way of signifying the end of a group in TAP then
it removes a chunk of the utility for the people writing things that
generate TAP - since everybody has to write their own checks that groups
actually output the number of tests that they should.
If we have an end-of-group
On Jul 3, 2006, at 4:29 AM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
What about prove(1) ? Are you going to make a version of it that uses
TAP::Harness ? And it so, will it be removed it from T::H ? (I hope
not,
since it's part of the core). Or have a fork ?
No, prove will be in both Test::Harness and
On 03/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That seems like a problem too but the one I'm trying to get at is
>
> 4 no plan, with groups
>
> If your script exits prematurely after one of the groups, the harness
> will not notice because everything looks just fine. The solution to
> th
- Original Message
From: Jonathan T. Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would say that even if nobody else is interested, if you're
> interested, do it :)
I am tempted, but there are some problems with parsing TAP output as it
currently stands. I can write a grammar for it, but the gramm
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1. I want to name a group of tests rather than the individuals.
...
> Here's what we came up with.
>
> 1..10
> ..4 - name for this group
> ok 1
...
> Pros:
> * Its backwards compatible. The ..# lines are currently considere
On 3 Jul 2006, at 17:47, Ovid wrote:
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Its backwards compatible. The ..# lines are currently considered
junk and ignored.
Is this behavior documented anywhere?
[snip]
From Test::Harness::TAP
Anything else
Any output
On Monday 03 July 2006 09:12, Ovid wrote:
> I am tempted, but there are some problems with parsing TAP output as it
> currently stands. I can write a grammar for it, but the grammar can easily
> produce some output which doesn't make sense.
Isn't this the syntactic/semantic problem common to all
On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Ovid wrote:
Hi all,
I would still like to be in a position to write a grammar for TAP,
but I've heard no answers to my questions. Should I assume that a
formal grammar is not wanted/desired at this point?
No no no, please do. I will be glad to put it in TAP
- Original Message
> From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Monday 03 July 2006 09:12, Ovid wrote:
> > I am tempted, but there are some problems with parsing TAP output as it
> > currently stands. I can write a grammar for it, but the grammar can easily
> > produce some output which d
On 7/3/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Currently, the way that Test::Harness::TAP reads, I should properly discard
anything which is not a plan, test or diagnostic output. However, test failure
output and programmer supplied diagnostic output need to be disambiguated or
diagnostic informa
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Diagnostic information *is* unreliable in TAP.
> Do not parse it.
It is now being discarded.
> Test::Harness does not allow a leading space. There's no reason to start.
OK. Thanks.
> Test::Harness handles directives ca
I would say that even if nobody else is interested, if you're
interested, do it :)
That said, I would be interested. I'm still trying to page all the
perl6/parrot grammars (PGE, TGE, etc.) into my brain, so any additional
examples would helpful, interesting, and fun. For me, anyway :)
Rega
On Monday 03 July 2006 09:01, Jonathan T. Rockway wrote:
> That said, I would be interested. I'm still trying to page all the
> perl6/parrot grammars (PGE, TGE, etc.) into my brain, so any additional
> examples would helpful, interesting, and fun. For me, anyway :)
Jerry Gay just wrote a PGE TA
19 matches
Mail list logo
