Re: Extraneous whitespace on failures with T::Harness 0.48, T::More 0.60
Nik Clayton wrote: All, There seems to have been a change in the output format for test failures semi-recently. Given this test script: #!/usr/bin/perl use Test::Harness 0.48; use Test::More 0.60; plan tests => 2; ok(1, 'test 1'); ok(0, 'test 2'); I get this output: 1..2 ok 1 - test 1 not ok 2 - test 2 # Failed test (test.pl at line 9) # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2. Notice the blank line between the "not ok 2" line and the first line of diagnostic output. That seems new. I confirm your observation. My installed Test::More is v0.47 and generates no extra linespace before # Failed. Running the same script with v0.60 produces the extra linespace. I don't know which version this crept in on or why. jimk
Re: Devel::cover bug?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 06:56:50PM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote: > As I recall [I may be wrong], some of your snippets were under > /5.8.0/... isn't < 5.8.2 considered squirrelly (technical term) under > Devel::Cover? Yes, you're right, I do recommend a minimum version of 5.8.2. It would be interesting to see whether the problem remains in something more recent. I wonder too whether 64bits has anything to do with it. > Perl 5.8.0 and 5.8.1 will give slightly different results to more recent > versions due to changes in the op tree. Actually, the changes are between 5.8.0 and 5.8.1, but I notice the docs are wrong there. They wont be in the next release. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
Re: Devel::cover bug?
Kevin Scaldeferri wrote: On Jun 3, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Certainly. Of course, it's always possible and quite likely that there is a bug in my code somewhere. But there is also a chance that I am conflating two ops, since I have yet to come up with a way to uniquely identify an op (suggestions welcome). You're not running on 5.6.x are you? No, 5.8.x -kevin As I recall [I may be wrong], some of your snippets were under /5.8.0/... isn't < 5.8.2 considered squirrelly (technical term) under Devel::Cover? Perl 5.8.0 and 5.8.1 will give slightly different results to more recent versions due to changes in the op tree. -=Chris smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Devel::cover bug?
On Jun 3, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Certainly. Of course, it's always possible and quite likely that there is a bug in my code somewhere. But there is also a chance that I am conflating two ops, since I have yet to come up with a way to uniquely identify an op (suggestions welcome). You're not running on 5.6.x are you? No, 5.8.x -kevin
Re: prove with Devel::Cover example?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 06:44:53PM +, Mark Stosberg wrote: > Ok, I'm feeling brain dead about this one-- this seems easy but I'm > missing it. > > How can I use 'prove' and Devel::Cover together? I tried: > > perl -MDevel::Cover prove ... > > but didn't cover the scripts that ran. > > Mark > prove is just a cover over Test::Harness, so (if I remember correctly) HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-MDevel::Cover prove ... should work. Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Devel::cover bug?
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:00:03PM -0700, Kevin Scaldeferri wrote: > On Jun 1, 2005, at 2:35 PM, James E Keenan wrote: > > >Kevin Scaldeferri wrote: > >>I'm looking at a bit of output from Devel::Cover that I imagine has > >>to be a bug. I'll try my best to reproduce the HTML output: > >>stmt branch cond sub time code > >>221862 100 100 _1613639 next if > >>($line =~ /^\s*[#!]/ || $line =~ /^\s*$/); > > > >>If you look at the subroutine coverage page, it claims that there is > >>a BEGIN block uncovered at that line. > >... nor have I seen an uncovered BEGIN block. But that may just be a > >side effect of the sort of things I've been doing coverage analysis > >on. > > Well, there is no BEGIN block there at all, so that suggests something > funny is going on. Certainly. Of course, it's always possible and quite likely that there is a bug in my code somewhere. But there is also a chance that I am conflating two ops, since I have yet to come up with a way to uniquely identify an op (suggestions welcome). You're not running on 5.6.x are you? -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
Re: prove with Devel::Cover example?
Subject: prove with Devel::Cover example? From: Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:44:53 + (UTC) }How can I use 'prove' and Devel::Cover together? I tried: HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-MDevel::Cover prove file.t -Pete K -- Pete Krawczyk perl at bsod dot net
prove with Devel::Cover example?
Ok, I'm feeling brain dead about this one-- this seems easy but I'm missing it. How can I use 'prove' and Devel::Cover together? I tried: perl -MDevel::Cover prove ... but didn't cover the scripts that ran. Mark
Extraneous whitespace on failures with T::Harness 0.48, T::More 0.60
All, There seems to have been a change in the output format for test failures semi-recently. Given this test script: #!/usr/bin/perl use Test::Harness 0.48; use Test::More 0.60; plan tests => 2; ok(1, 'test 1'); ok(0, 'test 2'); I get this output: 1..2 ok 1 - test 1 not ok 2 - test 2 # Failed test (test.pl at line 9) # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2. Notice the blank line between the "not ok 2" line and the first line of diagnostic output. That seems new. Is this a deliberate change? I know that programs aren't supposed to pay attention to lines that don't match ok/not ok, and normally that'd be fine. However, most of my testing for libtap[1] is done by running Perl tests, and then running equivalent tests written using libtap, and verifying that the output (including diagnostic output) is the same. So all my tests just broke :-( It's not difficult to change them all, I just want to make sure that this change in format is now 'official' (or as official as it gets) and isn't likely to be reverted in the future. Cheers, N [1] Plug: http://jc.ngo.org.uk/trac-bin/trac.cgi/wiki
