On 10/19/2021 3:42 AM, Schelte wrote:
> As far as I could quickly tell, there are about twice as many tests for
> the http package as there are for the www package. Not exactly "orders
> of magnitude". But please let me know if there is anything you feel is
> missing from the test suite of the www package.
Just to be clear, I certainly did not mean to denigrate other http
implementations with respect to testing or quality. That was not my
intent. Rather I meant to highlight at least one positive aspect of the
The Tcl http suite contains over 2000 tests. You might not have noticed
because they are spread over multiple test files and will not run
without multiple constraints enabled (and will take more than an hour to
run). But more than just the number of tests my use of "comprehensive"
related not just to tests but to number of scenarios covered given the
number of HTTP option *combinations* possible - methods(get,post
variations*mime types*HTTP codes*error conditions. That's an impossible
number to test! Perhaps a look at http.test http11.test and
httpPipeline.test might help identify missing (if any) test cases for
www and whether they are worth adding/spending time on.
> Despite the more extensive test suite of the http package, it still has
> a number of bugs/issues. Which is one of the reasons I chose to write
> the www package from scratch, rather than build it on top of the http
Quite possible though in my usage I've found the http package has
greatly improved between 2.7 and the current version.
Again, I'm not knocking the other http packages which I also use. They
are undoubtedly more convenient and featureful and much appreciated. I'm
merely drawing attention to what I see as a strength in the Tcl http one.