Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Adam Spiers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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.
It doesn't seem too bad. After fixing a bareword problem (committed),
t/all_tests and t_assert pass OK. I was also getting warnings from
TestCase::to_string, called from Exception::stringify, which were
fixed by this:
--- TestCase.pm.~1.19.4.9.~ Thu Oct 25 16:03:34 2001
+++ TestCase.pm Fri Oct 26 17:03:54 2001
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
sub to_string {
my $self = shift;
my $class = ref($self);
- return $self->name() . "(" . $class . ")";
+ return $self->name() ? $self->name() . "(" . $class . ")" : $class;
}
sub make_test_from_coderef {
Haven't committed this though, as I'm not sure whether it hides
badness or not. Should $self->{_name} be initialised at that point?
Also, if you raise an exception from within to_string(), you get
infinite recursion, although in this context to_string() is probably
already being called by exception-handling code, so I guess that's
inevitable.
I'm also getting a failure from t/try_examples:
not ok 5
# Test 5 got: 'TEST-RUN-SUMMARY
# TIME-SUMMARY
#
# OK (3 tests)
# ' (t/try_examples.t at line 81)
# Expected: 'Can't call method "run" on an undefined value at
lib/Test/Unit/TestRunner.pm line 58.
# '
I think that's examples/patch100132. Why is it expecting that error?
Replacing the guru_checked value with a pass like the other two values results in
t/all_tests.........ok
t/assert............ok
t/try_examples......NOK 3Skipping example file 'examples/fail_example.pm', no
guru-checked answer
t/try_examples......ok
All tests successful.
Hooray! :-)
Did you have any other concerns with the branch that I should know
about before starting hacking on it?
> The naming's still ugly though...
>
> T::U::UnitHarness
> T::U::HarnessUnit
>
> What were we thinking?
Yeah, that is pretty bad.
_______________________________________________
Perlunit-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perlunit-devel
