[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 12:16:08 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:40:39AM CET:
> On Sunday 20 March 2011, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> If I'm not misreading the class TAP2SubUnit in python/subunit/,
> converting from TAP into subunit shouldn't be much difficult, even with
> just the POSIX tools available.  This means that we could add support for
> TAP "today", and if "tomorrow" we decide (or our users tell us) to start
> supporting also SubUnit, we could add a SubUnit parser, and then continue
> to support also TAP by writing a TAP->SubUnit converter and filtering TAP
> output into it -- which would allow us to drop the TAP parser (less code
> to maintain) without losing backward-compatibility.

Or add a subunit parser and a quick tap2subunit perl module today
and have the best of both worlds?  (This is meant as an honest question,
even if it looks like a rhetoric one.)


reply via email to

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