On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 12:28:10PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
Test::Simple++
What if it's someone elses tests?
Send them a patch?
Tony
--
--
Tony Bowden | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.tmtm.com/
-Original Message-
From: Mark Fowler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: .emacs help
Yes, I know I should be using vi. Or one of the other
testing modules.
this slipped by me the first time.
Use vi my arse
Tony Bowden sent the following bits through the ether:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 12:28:10PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
Test::Simple++
What if it's someone elses tests?
Send them a patch?
That is exactly what I am currently doing. How did you know? ;-)
Leon
ps
Wilson, Andrew (Belfast) wrote:
once the whole file is converted.
Heh :) nice double meaning there.
This test file was converted to the One True Faith of test suite building.
Praise the Lord!
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:08:40PM -, Wilson, Andrew (Belfast) wrote:
I totally agree with using Test::Simple or Test::More but it
will take much longer to change the file to using Test::Simple
purely becase you're going to have to think up names for at
least 23 tests before you find the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:45:23PM -, Wilson, Andrew (Belfast) wrote:
use Test::More tests = 45;
or whatever at the top of the file. You basically have to then edit
every test to add some sort of text identifer. Not rocket science
but also not quicker than typing
No, you don't
-Original Message-
From: Richard Clamp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:02 PM
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:45:23PM -, Wilson, Andrew
(Belfast) wrote:
use Test::More tests = 45;
No, you don't
richardc@jay:~% perl -e 'use Test::More tests = 2;
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 02:08:03PM -, Wilson, Andrew (Belfast) wrote:
you'll still have to put in a test name ever 5 or so test to
help you find number 23 though [0]
cheers
Andrew
[0] said Andrew backpedaling furiuosly [1]
[1] Nothing to see here, move along.
[2] caller
Any well
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:08:40PM -, Wilson, Andrew (Belfast) wrote:
I totally agree with using Test::Simple or Test::More but it
will take much longer to change the file to using Test::Simple
purely becase you're going to have to think up names for at
least 23 tests before you find the
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Any well written ok function can use (caller)[2] to report
the line number. IIRC Test::More uses Test::Simple::ok, which
in turn is Test::Builder::ok which does.
Which is of limited utility if your test goes something like this:
BEGIN { use_ok 'Some::Module',
Tony Bowden wrote:
In Test::More's slide I'd at least add an example of 'is' which IMO is
the #1 reason to use Test::More rather than Test::Simple.
Ah, that would explain why I picked Test::More, I suppose. I had forgotten
about that.
Yes, 'is' is useful, especially because of the contrasting
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Mark Fowler wrote:
Tony wrote:
I know you know, but I'll reiterate. The time it takes to switch to
Test::Simple is probably less that the time it'd take to intall some
lisp thingy to find the 23rd test ..
Test::Simple++
What if it's someone elses tests?
Then
12 matches
Mail list logo
