On 01/01/11 07:55, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On 2011.1.1 12:38 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Further I need some help on test rewrite (that's why you, Michael
Schwern, are on CC).
I'd like to rewrite step by step all tests like I did in t/06virtual.t
and t/08join.t. For this I
have to move the test main loop into the TestLib.pm and I would prefer
if I could setup
Test::More to print the file name and the line of the real test
(somewhere in the list of
tests - where the tests need some additional fields).
There's one of a number of things you might be trying to do here. Mainly I
don't know what the "main loop" is. If you rewrite the test how you want and
show me, I can show you how to fix the file/line numbers. Likely it will be a
simple matter of C< local $Test::Builder::Level = $Test::Builder::Level + 1>
in your loop routine.
That's only one step - I want the line numbers of the test, and the test is
currently written as an hash-entry in a test-list.
Probably it's wiser to create an own "sql_test" sub which contains the code
from the test loop (see t/06virtual.t for an example).
Also, your 1.31_001 alpha is actually $VERSION 1.32. If this was intentional,
I would recommend against prematurely increasing the actual $VERSION. It will
cause confusion with the real release, not everything respects the
distribution version (ie. what's on the tarball), and it's odd to unpack
Foo-1.23_01.tar.gz and get Foo-1.24. Now that 1.32 is confused, I would
recommend you skip 1.32 and the next alphas be 1.32_0x. Then the final
version be 1.33.
Yes, maybe - but this might confuse others ...
I had chosen this kind of file renaming according to xdg's blog entry
"version numbers should be boring".
You're shipping .aspell.local.pws which looks like a local dictionary for a
spell checker. Intentional?
You had to ask Tux (Merijn) about this - he added that file.
Finally, the disparity between the tarball name and the directory indicates
that you're not using "make dist" to create your tarball. This risks picking
up things ignored by your MANIFEST.SKIP.
No - I did a "make test && mv $a $b"
/Jens
