Perl's not the only TAP source

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Steve Purkis wrote:

>>> 2. write a plugin for prove that treats *.1 the same way as *.tap
>>
>> I see the sample plugin there, but I don't really understand enough  
>> to do much with it. What method should I implement to intercept  
>> file names and tell TAP::Harness how to process them?
>
> Hmm.  I was thinking something like:

Yeah, I guess I don't really understand the point of the prove plugins.

> Must admit, that's jumping through more hoops than I'd like.  Would  
> be nicer if the Prove plugin could specify the source args to the  
> harness.  Then you could just set this in the App::Prove plugin's  
> init() method:
>
> 	sources =>{ File => {extensions => '.1' } }
>
> Hmm.

Yeah, that'd be handy, especially if I could then pass it on the  
command-line:

   prove --source pgTAP --config username=postgres --config dbname=try

>> The only other thing I might want to do is have a way to tell it to  
>> run a pgTAP test even if there is no test script in t. I can take  
>> that to a different thread, though, once this stuff is done.
>
> Understandable, and yeah: different thread.=

Yeah, I never got around to it. It's less urgent.

> This one's already overlapping the "Test::Harness features" thread  
> (where there's talk of a generic plugin system for TAP::Harness).   
> My brain hurts from context switching...

I haven't really been following that thread, to be honest.

> Agreed.  You've already shown a few gaping holes in the docs /  
> functionality.  A nice plugin-writer's guide would be really helpful.

And the simpler the interface for writing a new source, the better.

> Before that gets started, let's wait & see what happens with the  
> generic plugin system mentioned in the other thread.  There's a  
> chance the source stuff may change.

Well, I wouldn't write one until we'd settled on the interface, anyway.

>> Yeah, exec is the way to go for everything, really.
>
> Well, almost everything.  Certainly most plugins we'd want to write  
> right now.

Yeah, I realized that after I mailed that.

> Good to hear we're heading in the right direction.  You posted  
> another email on simplifying sources, will reply separately.

Yes, I've had a few more thoughts about that as I've realized that  
there are many sources that won't want exec.

>> PGCon was great, my talk went over really well. More testing!
>
> Will have to check out the slides.  About time someone thought about  
> testing in Postgres.
> They up anywhere?

A few places. There's a [video][], a [SlideShare deck][], and a [PDF][].

[video]: http://hosting3.epresence.tv/fosslc/1/watch/129.aspx
[SlideShare deck]: http://justatheory.com/computers/databases/postgresql/unit-test-your-database.html
[PDF]: http://www.pgcon.org/2009/schedule/attachments/94_unit_test_your_database.pdf

Best,

David