There is no skip_rest(), but skip_all() can do that job, with a tiny enhancement
sub skip_all {
- if (@_) {
- print STDOUT "1..0 # Skipped: @_\n";
+ if ($test == 1) {
+ if (@_) {
+ print STDOUT "1..0 \# Skipped: @_\n";
+ } else {
+ print STDOUT "1..0\n";
+ }
} else {
- print STDOUT "1..0\n";
+ # allow skipping all remaining tests
+ for ($test..$planned) {
+ print STDOUT $test++, " \# skip @_\n";
+ }
}
exit(0);
}Tested with:
#!./perl
chdir 't' if -d 't';
@INC = ('../lib','.');
require "test.pl";
plan(42);
ok(1);
skip_all();
there are obviously ways to do it currently, but theyre suboptimal.
the patch above prints $planned - $test different lines,
IFF TAP allows it,
13..25 # skipped: various reasons
could be legitimate way to skip rest, at least when a plan is established already.
13..0 # skipped
could also be legitimate
thus avoiding 12 boring skip lines.
I think this is open to interpretation, at least its not specifically excluded in
http://www.petdance.com/random/tap.html#skipping_tests
The real goal is to test the waters for a similar addition to Test::More, so that some test files can be simplified to
use_ok ( Foo ); $foo = new Foo; isa_ok ($foo, 'Foo'); skip_all "no Bar available" unless eval "require 'Bar'"; ...
Ok, not a particularly compelling example, but I hate getting my skip-counts wrong just cuz I added a few tests. Also, given that tests should ideally be order independent, its good to use use_ok, isa_ok at the top of your test-scripts, and thus skip_rest should be available.
So I just want to see if interpretations are locked down b4 I went down a garden path.
