Golden <x...@xdg.me> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a small objection to putting an alt module in a namespace other
>> than alt: It is less obvious. If I see Alt::Thing I will simply know it
>> will r
I think alt modules are fine.
I am fine with an env-var solution, BUT I am now ok with a single env var
that allows any alt module in. I would recommend either a standard such as
PERL_ALLOW_ALT_[MODULE_NAME], or PERL_ALLOW_ALT="Alt::One,Alt::2". I doubd
anyone wants to allow arbitrary alt modules
*bump*
This thread has produced very little chatter. Bumping the thread again
after talking to rjbs. Next week he and I are going to talk about next
steps. (Please do not read that as we will talk next week and release, that
is not intended, implied, or expected).
-Chad
will
not be taken as a seal of approval. That said, indefinite silence will also
not be considered a blocker past a point, but no time limits have been set
either way.
-Chad
On Feb 6, 2016 2:13 AM, "Kent Fredric" <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 February 2016 at 08:14,
On October 29th, 2015, I released Test-Stream as stable. I did this because
I felt it was ready, and because I was no longer receiving any feedback from
perl-qa asking me to change things. Since that release, the feedback picked
up substantially. It seems that declaring something done is the best
te of the variables
as well as their value, but I would really prefer not to do that if I do
not have to.
-Chad
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de>
wrote:
> * Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> [2016-01-18 06:55]:
> > Which behavior do you w
Been talking about this in #p5p, so far it seems the problem is the test is
fragile, and patching the test is fine.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, new problem I have found based on the change to restoring $@, $!, and
> $?.
>
>
like the one above and
his response was:
->release; $@ = $err;
> oh, of course
> Ha, right. I'm dumb.
> Thanks!
-Chad
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de>
wrote:
> * Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> [2016-01-12 04:20]:
>
it as it is a
typically desired behavior.
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can add a complex mechanism, or someone can just do this:
>
> sub modifies_err {
>> my $ctx = context();
>> ...
>> my $err = $@;
>>
think it's a negligible
> cost, but I would profile it.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 14 January 2016 at 07:39, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Right now the version I have up on cp
wants to hack on it. This should at least be in the
> commit messages so it could be tracked down.)
>
> S.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, your understanding appears correct. And I can make it more clear.
Test::More/Test::Builder work VERY hard to ensure nothing inside them
alters $! or $@. This is for thing like this:
ok(do_something_scary());
> is($!, 0, "expected $! val");
> is($@, undef, '$@ not changed');
Without Test::More/Builder being careful to support this, the second 2
January 2016 at 16:14, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That said, it just occured to me that this can possibly be accomplished
> by
> > having a context store $! And $@ when it is obtained, then restore them
> when
> > it is released, which would a
, "Chad Granum" <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Test::More/Test::Builder work VERY hard to ensure nothing inside them
> alters $! or $@. This is for thing like this:
>
> ok(do_something_scary());
>> is($!, 0, "expected $! val");
>> is($@,
https://github.com/Test-More/Test2/issues/9
Issue created to do this the easy/efficient way.
On Jan 11, 2016 7:14 PM, "Chad Granum" <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some things I forgot to mention:
>
> Test2, the dist, is just internals. It provides no tools. It does n
Test::Builder appends all Ok's to a structure it can return via
$tb->details. These Ok's have the fields 'ok' and 'actual_ok'. 'actual_ok'
is the true/false value passed to $tb->ok, 'ok' is adjusted to be true if
the test was run under TODO.
Created https://github.com/Test-More/test-more/issues/616 to track this
where more people can see it.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Karen Etheridge <p...@froods.org> wrote:
>
>> >
+2 And further, when we have that notification thing that lets people know
they have people using their stuff, when their module reaches a critical
number of things depending on it, we should recommend they link to it in
their POD, assuming they want to follow it.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:03
Looks like Test2 is already taken, which is odd considering a permission
check on pasue did not show it, but when I tried to upload something it
failed.
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 May 2015 at 08:24, Chad Granum exodi...@gmail.com wrote:
I
I like the Test2 Idea, mind if I upload a module real quick to first-come
the namespace? or are you going to claim it?
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis pagalt...@gmx.de
wrote:
* David Golden x...@xdg.me [2015-05-02 19:35]:
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kent Fredric
Right now I am working on a branch that removes the legacy/backcompat stuff
that permeates Test-Stream. This is no small task, expect it sometime in
the next week or so. I am sticking with the Test::Stream namespace for now,
no reason to switch it at this point.
Once this branch is done we can
Test::Stream will still have a no non-core dep policy, so depending on both
Test-Stream and Test-Builder effectively adds 1 dep, that is not burdensome.
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis pagalt...@gmx.de
wrote:
* Sawyer X xsawy...@gmail.com [2015-05-02 23:05]:
Effectively
something I would put into the repo, they are
just to see if we can narrow down the problem.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Chad Granum exodi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no problem blocking on #589, so long as it remains actionable. We
need to try to narrow down on the problem, and if possible
Actually, try this one first:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Chad Granum exodi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have attached 5 patches, can you try each one individually and see if
any of them make your problem go away?
Some of these patches will break Test-Simples test suite, Best option is
to -I
to replicate and we may need to see if the
problem crops up elsewhere for confirmation, but sporadic global
destruction memory errors isn't something I want released to the world.
David
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Chad Granum exodi...@gmail.com wrote:
_110 uploaded as expected
I need some feedback on some concurrency related items regarding
Test-Stream.
*What you need to know:*
- Test-Simple legacy supported threads, but not forking
- Test::SharedFork adds for support, backcompat will be preserved
- Test-Stream supports threads and forking
-
26 matches
Mail list logo
