Added Diagnostic and Diagnosticf.

[tesujimath]

Resolves #3.

These produce diagnostic output, as defined by the TAP spec.

I thought it was worth having both, as otherwise my code tends to be littered with fmt.Sprintf() inside t.Diagnostic().

[wking]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:58:28PM -0800, Simon Guest wrote: These produce diagnostic output, as defined by the TAP spec.

Spec reference [1]. Is it worth checking to ensure that the message/format string contains no newlines? Or inserting leading ‘#’ and stripping any trailing newline as needed? [1]: https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html#diagnostics

[tesujimath]

OK, that's a good idea. Give me a few minutes ...

[wking]

What you have in f9cf6d7 looks good to me, but this still needs a Makefile entry.

[wking]

e740b6b looks good to me.

The only other thing I can think of would be to have test/diagnostic/main.go write the Diagnostic calls to an internal buffer and have a wrapper harness which compares that output with the expected value. You can do that since b2acfdc with:

func main() {
  buf := new(bytes.Buffer)
  t1 := tap.New()
  t1.Header(4)
  t2 := tap.New()
  t2.Writer = buf
  t2.Header(1)

  buf.Reset()
  t2.Diagnostic("expecting all to be well")
  t1.Ok(buf.String() == "# expecting all to be well\n", "Diagnostic correctly formats a single line")

  buf.Reset()
  t2.Diagnosticf("here's some perfectly magical output: %d %s 0x%X.", 6, "abracadabra", 28)
  t1.Ok(buf.String() == "# here's some perfectly magical output: 6 abracadabra 0x1C.\n", "Diagnosticf correctly formats a single line")

  buf.Reset()
  t2.Diagnostic("some\nmultiline\ntext\n")
  t1.Ok(buf.String() == "# some\n# multiline\n# text\n", "Diagnostic correctly formats multiple lines")

  buf.Reset()
  t2.Diagnosticf("%d lines\n%s multiline\ntext", 3, "more")
  t1.Ok(buf.String() == "# 3 lines\n# more multiline\n# text\n", "Diagnosticf correctly formats multiple lines")

  t2.Pass("all good")
}

[tesujimath]

Hi, I don't think that's worth the effort, sorry. I hope you will take the pull request anyway. :-)

[wking]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:08:05PM -0800, Simon Guest wrote: Hi, I don't think that's worth the effort, sorry. I hope you will take the pull request anyway. :-)

I'm just the peanut gallery, not a maintainer ;).

[mndrix]

Thanks @tesujimath for the patches. Thanks @wking for the code review. I've merged this branch and made a couple follow-up commits (referenced above).

[tesujimath]

You're welcome. Thanks for merging it.