Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Ron Savage
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:56:55 +1000, Robert Loomans wrote: Hi Robert > As a compromise, Tyler, how 'bout you only run the tests in this > case if SQLite is *already* installed? Other modules already do > things this way. eg, look at Log::Log4perl and the tests for LWP, Yeah, this should be ok. --

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Robert Loomans
> > - If DBI_DSN is not set, default to depending on, and testing > > against, SQLite. > > No. People should have to explicitly set DBI_DSN to make it do something. > So, unset should be the same as set to empty string. I don't agree. As a compromise, Tyler, how 'bout you only run the tests in t

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Ron Savage
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:45:30 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote: Hi Tyler I do understand your point, but I think you need to re-think this. > *whines* But this would break the functionality I was looking for > in the first place: good automated QA being in a somewhat self- So far so good. > contain

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Tyler MacDonald
Ron Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - If DBI_DSN is not set, default to depending on, and testing > > against, SQLite. > No. People should have to explicitly set DBI_DSN to make it do something. > So, unset should be the same as set to empty string. *whines* But this would break the

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Ron Savage
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:07:18 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote: Hi Tyler > Currently, it *does* use the prompt() function supplied by > ExtUtils::MakeMaker, which is supposed to prompt you if you have a > controlling terminal, so long as PERL_MM_USE_DEFAULT is not set. Excellent! Much appreciated. -

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Ron Savage
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:19:41 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote: Hi Tyler > I've had some time to digest this, and it seems that rather than > coining an entirely new environment variable, I could use DBI_DSN: Good! Here are my votes: > - If DBI_DSN is set, use that as the DSN for testing, and don't

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Tyler MacDonald
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you really want, make the SQLite tests optional if some environment > > variable is set (eg, SKIP_SQLLITE_TEST). > > OK, I like the environment variable thing. That gives me the > opportunity to warn a user installing manually via CPAN that t

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Tyler MacDonald
Ron Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:00:14 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote: > > Hi Tyler > > > OK, I like the environment variable thing. That gives me the > > opportunity to warn a user installing manually via CPAN that they > > don't have to install SQLite2 if they don't

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-11 Thread Ron Savage
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:00:14 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote: Hi Tyler > OK, I like the environment variable thing. That gives me the > opportunity to warn a user installing manually via CPAN that they > don't have to install SQLite2 if they don't want. Just for the record: When I install a set of

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-10 Thread Tyler MacDonald
Robert Loomans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's what it does right now. The tests don't depend on SQLite2 > > per-se, just a DSN that points to a DBI driver that supports transactions > > (eg; pretty much everything except MySQL ;-) > Errr MySQL supports transactions just fine at least

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-10 Thread Darren Duncan
At 7:26 PM -0800 1/10/06, Tyler MacDonald wrote: Another option that occured to me while I was loading the dishwasher was bundling SQLite2 (or something like it) in my t/ directory. Sure, it will consume a bit of extra bandwidth when the package is downloaded, but it won't leave the bloat

Re: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-10 Thread Tyler MacDonald
Ted Behling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for replying to my own e-mail, but I had another thought. What > about just failing gracefully if SQLite2 isn't available? If it's > installed, it gets used; if not, a warning is shown and the dependent > tests are skipped. That's what it do

RE: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-10 Thread Ted Behling
y, January 10, 2006 10:12 PM To: dbi-users@perl.org Subject: RE: extra dependancies vs. testability? I haven't used this module myself, but perhaps create two test suites: "make test" tests everything you can test without burdensome external dependencies, and "make testsq

RE: extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-10 Thread Ted Behling
e effort into testing can invoke the latter. I'm not sure if this is an appropriate solution for "smoke testing", though. Ted Behling -Original Message- From: Tyler MacDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:43 PM To: dbi-users@perl.org Sub

extra dependancies vs. testability?

2006-01-10 Thread Tyler MacDonald
DBIx::Transaction currently only depends on DBI, but for it's unit tests to run you need a DBI driver available. If SQLite2 is available, it gives you a nice default DSN to test DBIx::Transaction in a completely self-contained environment. The problem I'm facing is that smoke teste