Re: [tap] "ok 1 description" vs "ok 1 - description"

["H.Merijn Brand" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:13:27 -0800, Michael G Schwern
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> What are you doing with them?
> > 
> > Archiving to track history of testruns and recognize result
> > changes. Probably similar to Smolder, I think, maybe more
> > finegrained. Therefore I care for single tests and their descriptions.
> 
> Looking at it another way, the WORST thing that happens with mixing a legacy
> producer which isn't aware of the dash with a post-spec, dash stripping parser
> is that the description might get interpreted wrong and you can't associate a
> description with it's historical results (though that would indicate that the
> test started using a different producer, which stretching this scenario even
> further).  Since using the description as a unique test ID is already a
> heuristic (something that was discussed in some depth at Oslo) your system
> must already be resistant to this problem.
> 
> Finally, if the parser always strips the optional dash it should always come
> out the same whether the producer uses a leading dash or not EXCEPT for one
> contrived case.  When a description deliberately is supposed to have a leading
> " -".  I can only think of a fairly contrived example, but if you wanted to
> output, say, Morse code "- ... -.-", and your producer doesn't know about the
> optional dash, it would say:

It would be nice to take this example in the docs, but then use

	- .- .--.

:)

-- 
H.Merijn Brand  http://tux.nl      Perl Monger  http://amsterdam.pm.org/
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.10.x, 5.11.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00,
11.11, 11.23, and 11.31, SuSE 10.1, 10.3, and 11.0, AIX 5.2, and Cygwin.
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/           http://www.test-smoke.org/
http://qa.perl.org      http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/