On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:14:33PM -0600, Scott Bolte wrote: > On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:22:24 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > > > It wouldn't be Test::Harness, it would be a seperate Test::Depends or > > something. > > I could live with that, but why do you think it needs to > be separate? > > The T::H documentation makes it quite clear that there are > plans to check for additional keywords (beyond /^(not )?ok/ > and "Bail out!") in the future. (See the "Anything else" > section.)
Test::Harness parses 'ok' and 'not ok' and 'Bail out'... Test::* modules produce the output Test::Harness parses. So your extra logic to parse "depends on" would go into your Test::Harness extension, but the depends_on() function to produce it would go into a seperate Test::* module. Rule Of Thumb: Test::Harness should not be used in a test script. > > > P.S. Btw, I also will be requesting that the stderr output > > > from tests be captured as well. > > > > Love to, but can't do it and still have T::H be cross-platform compatible. :( > > What you can do is have your tests print your diagnostics as lines beginning > > with a # to STDOUT. I believe T::H::Straps currently picks these up as > > type "other" but it may change to "comment" later. > > I could replace Test::More::diag() with a version that uses > STDOUT. Does that mean the goal of capturing STDERR listed > in T::H's TODO list has been abandoned? Nope. Just means I don't know how to do it. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Loon.
