[TIP] Result protocol

Douglas Philips dgou at mac.com
Sat Apr 11 20:09:51 PDT 2009

Wow, take one afternoon off and what I've missed!
I'm not going to try to catch up, too much has moved on, so I'm just  
going to jump in here:

On 2009 Apr 11, at 10:52 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> Yes, no matter the output, the things above that in the stack need to
> be able to derive something from it, which means walking the data/etc.
> But why deal with yet another parser when there's plenty out there for
> free? They're largely defensive against malformed data (or semi
> tolerant) as well.

I have to say, that is precisely why I like Pandokia's format.
Simple, human readable, -text-, since, after all, test results are  
destined for human consumption.

I've noticed that this discussion seems to be oscillating between
a: Keep it simple and human readable and text.
b: Make it arbitrarily general, capable of binary blob transport, etc...

I'm going to put a stake in the ground and suggest:
Pick 'a'. We're talking about test results and associated textual meta- 
If you want 'b', define a protocol that wraps/subsumes 'a' rather than  
extends it.

> I still won't be able to touch subunit, due to licensing.

?? GPL is untouchable? I'm curious what your licensing requirements  
are (I might have missed it in the avalance of emails today? :) )

> Additionally, the executor
> component would save off arbitrary test output, which would be linked
> to in that report.
> I think I'm trying to solve something else, but which touches on some
> of what you're talking about. I know that the system I want to build
> has some of the attributes of subunit, and so I would use that as a
> bit of a reference.

See above ('a' and 'b'). As this discussion has gone back and forth,  
I'm pretty well convinced that this is above the 80% threshold.


More information about the testing-in-python mailing list