Adam Spiers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> *taps glass*
>
> Sorry for the long delay, I've been suffering from lack of spare time
> just like everyone else here it seems. Anyway, I'm back now :-)
>
>> Okay, if anyone's actually listening, I've just had a renaming fest in
>> the PDC_REFACTOR branch. A whole bunch of those Test::Unit::TestFoo
>> classes have become Test::Unit::Foo. Staying in place we have:
>>
>> Test::Unit::TestRunner, Test::Unit::TkTestRunner,
>> Test::Unit::TestSuite and Test::Unit::TestCase.
>>
>> Please, check stuff out, take a look, play with it, let me know I'm
>> not just doing this in a vacuum.
>
> Cool stuff Piers, I like the sound of everything you've done in this
> branch so far.
>
> In the absence of any serious activity on HEAD, I think it will make
> sense for me to play around with your branch, and base my
> modifications over the next week or two on it (maybe I'll even branch
> off your branch so I can commit stuff for you to play with?). Then we
> could consider getting it all merged back into HEAD for the next
> release before huge branch divergence rears its ugly head and starts
> causing big problems? Of course, what to release is Christian's call
> at the end of the day.
Actually, I think the branch is in a fairly ugly state at the moment.
I have the horrible feeling I screwed up creating it, but I'm actually
using (slightly doctored )branch code in a live project and it's
feeling good. You're right about lack of time though. I've just
started work again, and whilst it is, in part, driving what I need
from PerlUnit, it's also chewing up my time. (As is the article I
wrote for perl.com about Perl 6)
>
> My todo list, IIRC (it's been a while):
>
> - Incorporate my T::U::Runner class patch that I posted on 5 March (!)
> That gives us a proper place to store runner state.
>
> - Incorporate my patch for improving error messages when a test case
> class fails to compile (currently just says "not found", which is
> very misleading).
>
> - Address my concerns with the current lack of inheritance of users'
> test suites from T::U::TestSuite (see March 7th post, subject
> "TestSuite inheritance and runner state").
>
> - Might be worth renaming to T::U::Suite while I'm at it? I do like
> the renaming that Piers (and others?) have done along these lines
> so far. Hmm, maybe not, given that my T::U::Runner patch already
> results in two classes T::U::Runner and T::U::TestRunner with
> distinct roles.
The naming's still ugly though...
T::U::UnitHarness
T::U::HarnessUnit
What were we thinking?
> - Get test coverage reports working really nicely. I aim for
> per-package coverage reports, and per-method reports within each
> package too.
>
> Any comments?
See above.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
_______________________________________________
Perlunit-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perlunit-devel
