Open RonnyPfannschmidt opened 9 years ago
I don't understand this issue, but I doubt it should block 3.0. Let me know if you disagree.
@RonnyPfannschmidt is this something you want to tackle for 4.1 or 4.2 still?
@nicoddemus i beelive its more of a 6.0 or 7.0 thing - it will require breaking changes
before delving into it i'd like to resolve config, nodes and storage apis since doing it before would incur really bad and strange tech debt
@RonnyPfannschmidt I'm moving this for the 7.0 milestone (just so we don't lose sight of it, I believe this will take more work even for 7.0 still).
This huge chuck will stay with us longer than we wish
@RonnyPfannschmidt: before delving into it i'd like to resolve config, nodes and storage apis since doing it before would incur really bad and strange tech debt
Are there tickets already for how config / node / storage APIs would need to be changed to be able to do this? If not, could you write up what you think is necessary?
We have a couple of issues and projects about it
It's unlikely I can work on this before February /March
Projects was the right place to look, thanks! :)
the current usage of setupstate and runtestprotocol creates problematic quirks with tear-down, to elevate that problem and separate reports better, we should instead have a generator for setup/teardown actions and use those to report setup of items and fixtures as well as the running of items
that way we could remove the need for next-item and ensure each report is much more specific