Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from October 2011
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2011.10.30 2:58 AM, Adrian Howard wrote: >> I prefer the current subtests system for a few reasons: >> >> * With the new system I would have to re-write TAP streams from other sources >> to match the numbering system of the current stream. This makes more work for >> folk who are pulling in TAP streams from other boxes/processes. If we do go this >> route you would, ideally, need to have a "standard" system for > renumbering/counting >> streams. > > No, TAP::Harness would continue to parse subtest TAP. TAP from other tests > could still be embedded by simple indentation. Michael, I haven't followed the T::B 2 work closely enough, so could I ask you to please step back and explain the benefits of T::B 1.5 that is worth stepping backwards in terms of capabilities? What I mean is that we have TAP::Harness now that processes subtest TAP and we have a T::B now that produces subtest TAP, so why stop? This quote from the TB 2 docs scares me a little: "Test::Builder2 is very generic and doesn't do a lot of the work you've probably come to expect a test framework to do. This reduction of assumptions increases flexibility and ensures that TB2 can remain the core of Perl testing for another decade to come." That sounds an awful lot like second system syndrome. And -- hey, that's great if it works -- I mean no offense is saying that. But something that is *half* of a second system that loses a nice feature of the first system seems a suboptimal outcome. -- DavidThread Previous | Thread Next