andy at hexten.net
Thu Apr 17 11:10:49 UTC 2008
On 17 Apr 2008, at 09:24, Ovid wrote:
> I do like the syntax, but can you give a use case here? I could
> imagine the harness wanting to ignore exit codes if it cannot reliably
> determine them (reading TAP from an archive), but I'm unclear about
> producer directing this. However, even the slightest use case is
The specific use case was that prompted this was a set of tests in
parrot/languages/perl6 that are munged through a pre-processor
('fudge') that Larry wrote that alters the test to return a true value
to indicate that it's been munged.
More generally one can conceive of programs that could be modified to
emit TAP when they see a --test switch but whose exit value already
has some other meaning which can't conveniently be overloaded. The
advantage of the pragma is that such programs can still be self-
contained testable entities; no need for a wrapper to discard the exit
> That being said, I'm not entirely sure I like that test success/
> is dependent on exit codes as that's "out of band" information.
Yeah, agree. But that's probably a convention we're stuck with, no?
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
More information about the tap-l