Basically it's nearly impossible to fully parse it correctly.
If you have to pick one or the other, then you're breaking the common flow (human debugging code before pushing) so that management can have better reports.
The right solution would be to add a environment variable or CLI parameter that told tap to produce machine readable output, preferably with a separate tool that could convert the machine readable junk to whatever TAP currently writes to stdout/stderr.
But unlike TAP, it's fairly Perl-specific as opposed to just being an output format. I imagine you could adapt the ideas in it to Node but it'd be more complex than simply implement TAP in JS.
And yes, I think the idea of having different output formats makes sense. With Test2, the test _harness_ produces TAP from the underlying machine-readable format, rather than having the test code itself directly product TAP. The harness is a separate program that executes the tests.
Nothing should have to be parsed. Write test results to sqlite, done. You can generate reports directly off those test databases using anything of your choice.
your-program test-re.sqlite output.htmlhttps://web.archive.org/web/20110114031716/https://browserto...
- Make it possible to disable timeouts. Otherwise, people will need a different runner for integration, long running (e.g., find slow leaks), and benchmark tests. At that point, your runner is automatically just tech debt.
- It is probably possible to nest before and afters, and to have more than one nesting per process, either from multiple suites, or due to class inheritance, etc. Now, you have a tree of hooks. Document whether it is walked in breadth first or depth first order, then never change the decision (or disallow having trees of hooks, either by detecting them at runtime, or by picking a hook registration mechanism that makes them inexpressible).
On the one hand, running tests in any order should produce the same result, and would in any decent test suite.
On the other hand, if the order is random or nondeterministic, it's really annoying when 2% of PRs randomly fail CI, not because of any change in the code, but because CI happened to run unrelated tests in an unexpected order.
Therefore the tool should run the tests in random order, to flush out the non-decent tests. IMHO.
I sometimes run into issues not so much due to order dependencies specifically, but due to tests running in parallel sometimes causing failures due to races. It's almost always been way more work to convert a fully serial test suite into a parallel one than it is to just write it that way from the start, so I think there's some merit in having test frameworks default to non-deterministic ordering (or parallel execution if that's feasible) with the ability to disable that and run things serially. I'm not dogmatic enough to think that fully parallel/random order tests are the right choice for every possible use case, but I think there's value in having people first run into the ordering/race issues they're introducing before deciding to run things fully serially so that they hopefully will consider the potential future work needed if they ever decide to reverse that decision.
The solution is to use random ordering and print the ordering seed with each run so it can be repeated when it triggers an error. Immediately halt all new work until randomly run tests don't have problems.
This isn't as bad as it sounds, generally it's a few classes of things that cause the interference which each will fix many tests. It's unlikely that the code actually has a 2%+ density of global-variable use, for example.
This way the framework can kill the test if it doesn't see one of these messages in a short amount of time.
This fixed our timeout issues. We had tests that took too long, specially in debug builds and we'd end up having to set too large a timeout. Now though, we can keep the timeout for the heartbeat really short and our timeout issues have mostly gone away.
The problems isn’t with breaking rules. The problem is with promising yourself or others that you will fix it “later” and then breaking that promise.
I was a TL on a project and I had two "eng" on the project that would make test with a single method and then 120 lines of Tasmanian Devil test cases. One of those people liked to write 600 line cron jobs to do critical business functions.
This scarred me.
I was a long-time maintainer of Debian's cron, a fork of Vixie cron (all cron implementations I'm aware of are forks of Vixie cron, or its successor, ISC cron).
There are a ton of reasons why I wouldn't do this, the primary one being is that cron really just executes jobs, period. It doesn't serialize them, it doesn't check for load, logging is really rudimentary, etc.
A few years ago somebody noticed that the cron daemon could be DoS'ed by a user submitting a huge crontab. I implemented a 1000-line limit to crontabs thinking "nobody would ever have 1000-line crontabs". I was wrong, quickly received bug reports.
I then increased it to 10K lines, but as far as I recall, users were hitting even that limit. Crazy.
There indeed exist a few non-Vixie-cron-derivative implementations but as far as I'm aware, all major Linux and BSD distributions use a Vixie cron derivative.
Edit: I see now where I caused confusion. In my original post, I should have said all default cron implementations.
It used to be the major distribution. Funny how times change.
The test runner in VS2019 does this, too and it's incredibly frustrating. I get to see debug output about DLLs loading and unloading (almost never useful), but not the test's stdout and stderr (always useful). Brilliant. At least their command line tool does it right.
There are a set of unit testing frameworks that do everything they can to hide test output (junit), or vomit multiple screens of binary control code emoji soup to stdout (ginkgo), or just hide the actual stdout behind an authwall in a uuid named s3 object (code build).
Sadly, the people with the strongest opinions about using a "proper" unit test framework with lots of third party tooling integrations flock to such systems, then stack them.
I once saw a dozen-person team's productivity drop to zero for a quarter because junit broke backwards compatibility.
Instead of porting ~ 100,000 legacy (spaghetti) tests, I suggested forking + recompiling the old version for the new jdk. This was apparently heresey.