You can clone with
Write a formatter which outputs the JUnit XML which Jenkins consumes. I expect it will be the most popular format after TAP. It will exercise the flexibility of the formatter.
Schemas to work from can be found here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/442556/spec-for-junit-xml-output
See Test::Builder2::Formatter and Test::Builder2::EventWatcher for details about writing a formatter. Test::Builder2::TAP::v13 is currently the most fleshed out.
Jenkins supports TAP. Just sayin'
@leto Yes. TAP and JUnit output different types of information, so it would be nice if our tests could feed Jenkins the details it wants. It also means Perl devs don't have to go begging to the Jenkins admin to install a plugin. In addition, there are other tools which speak JUnit it would be nice to talk to. Finally, it will be an excellent test for the flexibility of the system.
@ovid Thanks for the links!
Note that the XSD file says "XML Schema for XUnit tests output".XUnit, not JUnit as this format is language agnostic (or acmeist).
I find TAP output more useful because it has TODO, which XUnit lacks.
@dolmen Thanks, but this isn't a format debate.
I don't understand your point about the XSD file. If it's relevant to implementing a [JX]Unit formatter, could you explain?
My point is only about the naming of the formatter plugin.
@dolmen I don't believe the XSD file that Ovid posted is definitive. In fact, I don't think there is a definitive XUnit/JUnit XML schema. The best I've seen is what Ant outputs.http://stackoverflow.com/questions/442556/spec-for-junit-xml-output
Most everything I read refers to it as the JUnit XML schema. Jenkins does and so does Ant. It's cross-language no matter what we call it, so it's best to name it by the name people expect.