Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from October 2011
Re: Do we need subtests in TAP?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Ovid
Date:
October 28, 2011 00:23
Subject:
Re: Do we need subtests in TAP?
Message ID:
1319786597.94532.YahooMailNeo@web65711.mail.ac4.yahoo.com
I'm in Prague all week, so I've been able to read, but not really participate.
Echo chamber alert: I've often seen long discussions on this list ignore the "real world" (though often for good reason). In this case, it sounds like there's a consideration of removing a feature from TAP. IMHO this is a bad idea which should be opened up to the community at large.
Moving along, the *idea* of a nested TAP is so conceptually simple that if the implementing code is struggling with it, perhaps it's a sign that there are some design decisions which should be revisited? When I find conceptually simple ideas hard to do, I find it a code smell. (note that I'm not saying the actual design is bad. I haven't looked). I also find subtests so incredibly convenient and opens up so many possibilities that I would hate to lose them (and I use them a lot).
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog - http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/
Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/
>________________________________
>From: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>
>To: Perl QA <perl-qa@perl.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2011, 23:09
>Subject: Re: Do we need subtests in TAP?
>
>Adrian forgot to send this to the list.
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: Do we need subtests in TAP?
>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:14:31 +0100
>From: Adrian Howard <adrianh@quietstars.com>
>To: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>
>
>Hey there,
>
>On 26 Oct 2011, at 04:56, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>> I understand wanting "blocks of tests" and the ability to make plans for just those blocks, but do we need a discrete test state for that? For example, Test::Class provides most of what subtests provide without special support.
>
>... and to do that T::C contains a bunch of annoying special case code than is
>(I think) still wrong in an odd corner case. Everybody who wants to do the
>things T::C does will also have to do that work.
>
>T::C implemented with subtests is _much_ cleaner code.
>
>There may be other ways of getting that complexity out of T::C (and similar)
>and into Test::Builder of course - but I'm not 100% sure what you're suggesting...
>
>> It occurred to me because most other testing systems don't have subtests.
>> They have test methods, but those aren't treated as a sub-state of the test.
>
>Some do have different levels of hierarchy though. (e.g. JUnit's Test Case /
>Suite distinction).
>
>> In essence, a "subtest" is nothing more than a block of tests with a name and it's own plan. The special TAP formatting seems unnecessary. I guess that's the real question, do we need the special TAP formatting or do we just need named test blocks with their own plan?
>
>One thing subtests TAP formatting gives you is a simple way to nest TAP
>streams from elsewhere. Any other system would mean you have to rewrite the
>nested stream (I think?)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Adrian
>--
>Who invented the eponym?
>
>
>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next