On 8/15/06, Adrian Howard <adrianh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that I could come up with a
really convincing argument for TAP for an audience using JUnit,
TestNG and similar...
Do we have a convincing argument? Maybe I'm just being overly
pessimistic today :-)
The separation of the display code from the tests themselves is a
bonus. Though one would have to check with folks who actually use
XUnit to be sure this is a problem, I can imagine cases where the test
author used some crappy XUnit implementation and the display of the
tests sucks (its ambiguous, missing information, doesn't provide
enough information, only graphical, etc). And there's little you can
do about that since the test and the display code are bound.
Its also handy for testing over a wire (David Wheeler's Javascript TAP
implementation, for example) or and stream. Testing a running
production program continuously is something I've been wanting to do
for a while (Test::AtRuntime).
There's also the advantage of it being cross-platform for those
projects which involve multiple languages (Java and PHP maybe?)
Finally, XUnit can be coerced into outputting TAP.
Trouble is at the moment all this is still in the prototype stage.
And none of them are killer.
|
