[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GSoC Proposal] automake - Interfacing with a test protocol like TAP

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [GSoC Proposal] automake - Interfacing with a test protocol like TAP or subunit
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:35:30 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

* Robert Collins wrote on Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:03:10AM CET:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Robert Collins wrote on Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 05:10:16AM CET:
> >> TAP is an extremely simple protocol, and the extensions to it to
> >> support things like not needing to maintain the count of tests,
> >> additional debug data and so on are pretty rudimentary. subunit, which
> >> I've mentioned before was written after TAP, to solve similar problems
> >> and address the issues in TAP itself.
> >
> > Are TAP and subunit compatible on their common subset?  If not, why not?
> You can convert TAP to subunit, and you can convert the things TAP can
> represent from subunit to TAP. subunit's core is more structured than
> TAP, so the two protocols don't pun as each other at all.

Are there existing converters?

> >> Unlike TAP subunit supports attachments (binary and text) to tests,
> >
> > Handling of binary data may end up being quite tricky within a
> > restricted Posix environment with only a few tools available.
> > What if a consumer cannot handle them?  Is there possibility
> > for graceful fallback?
> I didn't think posix had 7 bit limits?

Well, I meant generally handling binary data with shell tools only.
Analyzing binary data with portable shell tools can be tricky.

> Anyhow, there is a baseline
> profile which assumes just a single description of the error in a test
> - it uses \r] to delimit a traceback. Alternatively, a C parser - on
> my 'sometime' TODO list - will probably clock in small enough to
> bundle for projects very low in the dependency stack.

It would be nice if autotools could cope without compiled code.  That
leads to complications when $CC is a cross-compiler.  But I see in the
link that seemingly a shell consumer already exists.  So maybe my
worries are moot.

Is there any way we can measure existing usage of TAP or subunit that
doesn't rely on hearsay?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]