Re: [tap] RFC Status?

Andrew de Andrade <> Wed, 17 September 2014 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C129E1A0716 for <>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73HfrkR0CCpi for <>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2F5A1A0432 for <>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a108so2508005qge.30 for <>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=upkzoDJLDivQQznKz+sVvi/i4pKj8Xfoi02lHqNHbGA=; b=GpajfYEuSPHfkG/WcPWqzK37KTNk4xO2rDyV2rRJ2lL+3am0IzBIl2rVVJfnCVECBy UZSXL6EZjX6VNjFArkSwvlsd1474B8vrW4BMYunPp2IYGZpejUNhXIjg5DXPH01mo+bB gWq+cBKGLuEwxM24QLEjopUHRqFoCcxCxYFy9u18DKSa5UXAkauPW1kjbqR9FXSRVyMB 2d4Vz3iiY7AkzeM1eEAye1JKQAmTFAkR8WKQdjA60tt080qrRppRM/FdgNY9DeLQXz+B 0mOaPFZBljerDE05FKEMUVM53QdvyAKrVxGXRrgx4vbx+MPvkjPS02QONmN80AkWbiHq Yegw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlMMAzmfxJKm5wGpsnKm6i1OvKiHbFyvKcWoYfPWVAqphVI3pCI9n5xptoYbpPm6UpbwK55
X-Received: by with SMTP id z8mr9669746qar.77.1410978950471; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Andrew de Andrade <>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:35:30 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Leon Timmermans <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c306c621158b05034723cb
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tap] RFC Status?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:35:55 -0000

Sorry for being MIA (burning man, visiting family). I was planning on
getting on this after starting my new job (started on monday). I've got ~2
weeks of onboarding tasks to handle, then I will work on what I said I
would above. It looks like I might be responsible for front-end testing
here, so that should help :)

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Leon Timmermans <> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Andrew de Andrade <
>> wrote:
>> I'm working on some testing libraries for JavaScript based on TAP.
>> Specifically, I'm trying to explore making it possible for library authors
>> to not only check the results of their TAP tests, but also map-reduce the
>> TAP results of the dependents of their library to see how changes to their
>> library impact the correctness of their dependents.
>> e.g. I am the author of library A. I publish version 0.1.0. Another
>> author includes my library as a dependency in library B and in library C
>> and uses TAP to test those libraries. Given this scenario, it would be nice
>> if I could, when modifying my library, run not only my tests, but also run
>> the tests of all my dependents built with my previous version and my
>> current version and compare how my changes impacted the "correctness" of
>> their programs.
>> Beyond the benefits to a community, helping authors know when they can
>> likely safely upgrade their deps, this type of runner would also help in an
>> corporate environment with lots of code re-use between teams.
>> While thinking about this, I decided to go out and figure out if there is
>> such a thing as nested TAP in the protocol specification. While searching
>> for this, I came across this group, which is a great, but it appears there
>> has been no activity here in a while and it looks like all the wiki pages
>> with prior information about the state of the TAP protocol becoming an IETF
>> RFC have disappeared.
>> What's the current state of TAP? Is there still interest in taking this
>> to RFC status? I found some previous discussions on the list about nested
>> TAP. Did those make it into the specification in any way? If so, where can
>> I find examples of correct nested tap results?
>> Furthermore, is there a standardized set of test fixtures for the current
>> version that any implementation can be tested against for correctness and
>> performance? Having worked a bit with JSON schema, I found that one of the
>> most useful tools was a standardized set of tests to check if a particular
>> implementation conforms to the protocol standard. (see:
>> )
> I've been recently writing a TAP Harness, and for subtests I followed what
> Perl has been doing for years (just like TAP::Stream): have indented
> subtests follow by a non-indented summary line. None of this is described
> in detail anywhere though :-/, nor is the interaction with the barely
> defined YAMLish well-explored AFAIK.
> Leon

Q: Why is this email four sentences or less?