We are out of contest in here.
I know how to run open3, but I don't know how to test it. Repeating
use strict;
use warnings;
use IPC::Open3;
use IO::Handle;
use Test::More;
use Test::Trap;
sub shell_run {
my ($stdin, $stdout, $stderr) = map {IO::Handle->new} (0..2);
print "YYYY";
open3($stdin, $stdout, $stderr, @_);
foreach my $line (<$stdout>, <$stderr>) {
print "read: $line";
}
print "ZZZZ";
}
trap {shell_run('perl', '-E', 'print "TEXT IN"')};
#is( $trap->stdout, "YYYYZZZZ");
is( $trap->stdout, "YYYYTEXT INZZZZ");
done_testing();
How do I make that test pass?
or this:
trap {shell_run('perl', '-E', 'print STDERR "TEXT IN"')};
is( $trap->stdout, "YYYYTEXT INZZZZ");
Thanks
Marcos
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:32 AM, C.DeRykus <dery...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 10:42 pm, ole...@gmail.com (marcos rebelo) wrote:
>> the idea is to process the STDOUT ad the STDERR.
>>
>> open don't do it
>>
>
> I was afraid you'd say that...
>
> open3 is very liable to deadlock since you're trying to read from
> both stderr and stdout. You'll very likely want to use IO::Select
> to marshal when the read's occur and search for some sample
> code.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:08 AM, John W. Krahn <jwkr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > C.DeRykus wrote:
>>
>> >> Since you mention simplifying the code, do you actually
>> >> need IPC::Open3 ? In your sample code, you're only
>> >> reading process output.
>>
>> >> If you don't need IPC::Open3 complexity, you could just
>> >> use magic open to read output :
>>
>> >> sub shell_run
>> >> {
>> >> print "YYYY";
>> >> my $pid = open( my $fh, qq{ @_ | } ) or die "open: $!";
>>
>> > Probably better as:
>>
>> > my $pid = open my $fh, '-|', @_ or die "open: $!";
>
>
> In general yes but here I don't think there's a benefit.
> I believe perl will bypass the shell in both cases since
> a list is passed. And, IIRC, perl launches a shell only
> after parsing to see if it's absolutely required.
>
>
>>
>> > And you don't use $pid anywhere so why create it?
>
> Agreed, I was trying to guage the OP's intention more
> than cleaning up all the code.
>
>>
>> >> print for<$fh>;
>>
>> > Probably better as:
>>
>> > print while <$fh>;
>
> Hm, I'd prefer 'while' as well but, though it may look odd, I
> don't think there's been the penalty of 'for <$fh>' creating
> and then iterating through a potentially large list for some
> time.
>
>>
>> >> close $fh or die "close: ", $? || $!;
>>
>> > Probably better as:
>>
>> > close $fh or die $! ? "Error closing pipe: $!"
>> > : "Exit status $? from $_[0]";
>
> Definitely better. A child error might mask an
> error for a full disk.
>
> --
> Charles DeRykus
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
> http://learn.perl.org/
>
>
>
--
Marcos Rebelo
http://oleber.freehostia.com
Milan Perl Mongers leader http://milan.pm.org
Webmaster of http://sites.google.com/site/oleberperlrecipes/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
