[tap-l] What's with verbose rewriting the TAP?
Michael G Schwern
schwern at pobox.com
Wed Feb 18 21:30:36 GMT 2009
>> I've just noticed another instance of "prove -v" rewriting the TAP so that
>> you're not really seeing what the test output.
> Mea culpa. I did that when I first wrote TAP::Parser to ensure a nice, consistent
> output showing the end-user what TAP::Parser is interpreting each TAP line as.
> So yeah, I could see this being an issue. Should we have --raw to show the original TAP?
> Or --normalize to show what TAP::Parser is intending? I think Schwern is
right that we
> should show the actual output by default. (/me wonders if this will break
> relying on the new parser)
You can throw in both --raw and --normalized to control verbose output with
verbose defaulting to --raw. Normalizing the output is handy, it's just
> And Schwern, is there a bug in your mail software? Here's the to: line from the headers:
> To: Development at a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com,
> of at a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com,
> "TAPx:"@a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com:Parser <tapx-dev at hexten.net>
Looks like pobox mangled the headers. Possibly confused by the double colons.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's some obscure mail header syntax. I should
probably quote it to be safe. This is what went out:
To: Development of TAPx::Parser <tapx-dev at hexten.net>
Anyhow, how did we land on the IETF TAP list?
31. Not allowed to let sock puppets take responsibility for any of my
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
More information about the tap-l