[tap-l] Mad TAP proposal
andy at hexten.net
Thu Nov 1 09:26:57 EST 2007
On 1 Nov 2007, at 14:12, Michael Peters wrote:
> Andy Armstrong wrote:
>> Yeah - I slept on it. It should be TSP - Test Steering Protocol. If a
>> test emits TAP it's a test, if it emits TSP it's a controller. TAP
>> should stay pure.
> Sounds to me like it should just be a custom test harness. If the
> user needs to
> dynamically figure out which tests to run, then why not create a
> custom harness
> which will do what they need. This way they can have control over
> not only which
> files to run, but which routines (if they're using Test::Class),
> etc, etc.
> Writing your own harness is trivial now. I'd say writing something
> to emit a new
> protocol is no easier than writing a script that picks the test
> files/subs to run.
Yeah, but from the user's PoV this is pretty easy:
include ('xt/frob') if frob_avail();
include ('xt/slow') if all_the_time_in_the_world();
And it's not too hard to support in the harness.
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
More information about the tapx-dev