Some other ideas I saw in a real system:
- distinguish between failures in the configuration of the system under test
and the actual tes
this would yield levels such as conf_error and conf_warning
- In addition I am not sure if some of these calls should automatically bail out
as being fatal
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > The most bangs I can count instantly by looking at them is four.
> > For five bangs and up, all I see is âlots of bangs.â I have to
> > count character by character to tell them apart. Visual
On 17 Mar 2007, at 17:36, brian d foy wrote:
if you're going to use a different starting character for these
messages, how about a [ ? Follow the start of the string by a real
word:
not ok 1
[fail] Failed test in foo.t line 2
ok 2
[fatal] WHOA! The fabric of the universe just broke
Andy Armstrong wrote:
> I'm still not clear what this notation provides that we can't do with
> the new YAML machine readable diagnostic syntax. What are the supposed
> benefits? Concision?
Yeah, brevity. Pretty much. And human readability. YAML is pretty good and
all but some text prefixed wit
brian d foy wrote:
> if you're going to use a different starting character for these
> messages, how about a [ ? Follow the start of the string by a real
> word:
>
>not ok 1
>[fail] Failed test in foo.t line 2
>ok 2
>[fatal] WHOA! The fabric of the universe just broke down!
>[
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-18 00:55]:
> How about [*label*] or even just **label**?
>
> We could even say, for brevity, that no label == "notice".
>
> not ok 1
> **fail** Failed test in foo.t line 2
> ok 2
> **pass** Some information
> ok 3
> We're going to connect to t
( I'm going to be calling the YAML diagnostic syntax YAMLish and I
reckon this proposal should be called bang+ :)
On 17 Mar 2007, at 23:42, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Andy Armstrong wrote:
I'm still not clear what this notation provides that we can't do with
the new YAML machine readable
Andy Armstrong wrote:
> ( I'm going to be calling the YAML diagnostic syntax YAMLish and I
> reckon this proposal should be called bang+ :)
I'm calling it the logging proposal for lack of anything better. The bangs
are now gone.
>> Yeah, brevity. Pretty much. And human readability. YAML
On 18 Mar 2007, at 00:36, Michael G Schwern wrote:
OK, well it wouldn't be too hard to modify the YAMLish reader /
writer
to handle this syntax too.
You mentioned that one wiki, too, and it confused me. What does
the YAML
reader have to do with the bang syntax? Are you proposing
somethi
On 18 Mar 2007, at 01:03, Andy Armstrong wrote:
No - just expressing myself badly. What I meant was more like 'we
could plug this syntax in in the same way that we do the YAMLish
reader / writer'.
And in fact now I see how simple the proposal is I realise that even
mentioning how it might
10 matches
Mail list logo
