Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 04:53:18PM +0100, Tels wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday 21 December 2004 08:53, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>>
>>>I've gotten absolutely no response about Test::Legacy. Is anybody
>>>using it? Anybody tried migrating old Test.pm based tests with it?
>>
>>I am converting my old tests directly to Test::More (Test::legacy wasn't
>>available before so :)
>>
>>Currently I do not plan to do this - the old tests either work (never fix
>>what
>>is working) or they don't (seldom), at which point I would convert them to
>>Test::More.
>
>
> There's no "I want to add a new test to this test file that uses Test.pm and
> it would be nice if I could use Test::Foo" case?
I could see this being really good for Apache-Test, which is by default
Test.pm driven. the thing is that
- I've already ported A-T to use Test::More in place of Test.pm
- the native implementation uses Test.pm magic like
$Test::ntest = 1;
%Test::todo = ();
which I figured might be supported in time but not at the moment. of
course, that was only speculation on my part, since
- a severe lack of tuits on my part has kept me away
so I, for one, am very sorry that you've taken the time to work on something
that might prove useful to me and I haven't been able to reciprocate with
any kind of meaningful feedback.
sorry.
--Geoff
