Leon Timmermans
Leon Timmermans
> The example code you gave explains my distaste in standardising the old proposal of indenting the subtests, I want to keep parsing rules as simple as possible. I think...
The [earlier draft](https://github.com/TestAnything/test-anything-protocol/blob/master/output/draft-vaidya-test-anything-protocol-00.txt) contains an ABNF, but is describes only TAP12 plus the version header. No subtests, extended information or pragmas. Doesn't seem unicode friendly either.
> How does forcing the producer to always spit out diagnostics fix the issue? Because that way, you always know when to expect diagnostics: after a failure.
> Again I feel I am missing you point though. You have to wait until the next result before you can process it. Which is IMHO against the streaming philosophy...
> Implementations should fail hard and fast I suspect pragmas (#6) could be helpful here. > Implementations should only support the version they were designed for, when encountering a new...
> The other thought I had would be that we could specify error conditions for consumers I think I like that idea (though in this particular case it's only useful...
> I think there is value to adding YAML after the bail out however, like: Possibly it's useful to add it to the version or plan statement too. Or just...
I think that ideally there would be some sort of being and end marker, and the body contains exactly one test result and 0 or more diagnostics. Anything else is...
Yeah, that "a" should be an "and"