Re: [tap] Valids subtests (was: RFC Status?)

["Bruno P. Kinoshita" <[e-mail]>]

Haha, thanks Ovid!

Well, turns out tap4j TAP parser is likely broken for subtests then :)

I'll probably spend some time writing a new parser - which I'll try to make more compatible with Perl tools and with existing grammars. 

But some definitive documentation for subtests in TAP website would be grand too.

Cheers
Bruno


>________________________________
> From: Ovid <[e-mail]>
>To: Bruno P. Kinoshita <[e-mail]> 
>Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [tap] Valids subtests (was:  RFC Status?)
> 
>
>
>Bruno,
>
>
>I realized that referring you to the grammar is the same as RTFM and that's not fair when there are questions about the FM :)
>
>
>    1..2
>    ok 1 - foo
>        not ok 1 - some text
>    ok 2 - bar passed
>        not ok 1 - another text
>
>
>The above is not valid because there must always be summary ok/not ok lines *after* the subtest and the subtest must have a leading XOR trailing plan (in other words, not both) with the same indentation level as the subtest and the summary line *must* have an ok/not ok status that matches the results of the subtest. The following would be valid:
>
>
>    1..2
>        not ok 1 - some text
>        1..1
>    not ok 1 - foo (because the subtest did not pass)
>        1..2
>        ok 1 - another text
>        not ok 2 - whee! # TODO (todo tests are always considered as passing)
>    ok 2 - bar passed (because the subtest did pass)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Best,
>Ovid 
>
>--
>IT consulting, training, international recruiting
>       http://www.allaroundtheworld.fr/.
>Buy my book! - http://bit.ly/beginning_perl
>Live and work overseas - http://www.overseas-exile.com/
>
>