I was poking around on CPAN and noticed this rather complete
alternative to Pod::Tests for embedding tests in code, a bit closer to
what Barrie was discussing.
I've invited the author onto the list and hopefully he'll say a few
words. I'd also like people to poke around with it, see what its all
Part of the reason I'm going all this work on Test::Harness is because
I'm going to need the new features for my next job (altruism isn't
dead, its just lying bleeding on the floor).
As such, I need the new Test::Harness *without* having to use
bleedperl. Judging from the discussion on perl-qa
A few weeks ago I brought up the idea of unifying the format of todo
tests and skip tests:
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2001-01/msg00883.html
Well, here it is. This is a patch to both t/TEST and Test::Harness so
they honor this style of test output:
not ok 13 #
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:44:05AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:46:31PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Why is t/TEST anything more than a thin wrapper around Test::Harness?
>
> Because of potential fragility. If Perl isn't entirely together when
> you're running th
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:46:31PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why is t/TEST anything more than a thin wrapper around Test::Harness?
Because of potential fragility. If Perl isn't entirely together when
you're running the tests, the last thing you want to do is load up
Test::Harness. t/TEST
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:08:15PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I think it was supposed to be TEST with -Mutf8, basically.
> Why it was a separate script? Beats me.
Well, its not anymore. I've added a -utf8 flag to t/TEST and
elminated t/UTEST. make utest still works.
Here's a patch of t
And what the hell is t/UTEST? Looks like its for unicode. Ok, fine,
but I don't like the code duplication. In fact, it already looks like
the two are falling out of sync.
Case in point, "make utest" still breaks under the 'ok 1 - name'
style. It was never patched along with TEST. Additionall
Why is t/TEST anything more than a thin wrapper around Test::Harness?
It contains a partial reimplementation, but is missing some very
useful features, such as skip and todo tests. I particularly miss
todo tests. There's alot of little bugs which people mention and then
are forgotten, I'd like t
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:49:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >A simpler idea would to alter t/TEST so that it runs the tests as
> >"perl -I../lib". This isn't *quite* the same as @INC = '../lib', but
> >it should be close enough.
>
> It isn't. More than once we have things "pass" for _us
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>A simpler idea would to alter t/TEST so that it runs the tests as
>"perl -I../lib". This isn't *quite* the same as @INC = '../lib', but
>it should be close enough.
It isn't. More than once we have things "pass" for _us_ 'cos we have
perl already and test finds /us
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:55:29AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:22:13AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > One additional point to consider and solve is the BEGIN 'preamble' we
> > > now add to each test to make certain we are in a known directory, and
> > > more
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:05:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As one of the people with modules both on CPAN and in core, I'd be happy
> to put such a pre-amble on all of my tests in my module distribution if it
> didn't interfere with people running make test from the module
> distribution. I
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looks good to me.
> One additional point to consider and solve is the BEGIN 'preamble' we
> now add to each test to make certain we are in a known directory, and
> more importantly, that we are running the tests using *the* lib/ of the
> Perl we ar
Alot of the modules in the core have (or had) double lives on CPAN.
Alot of the tests are enormous. And t/ is, in general, something of a
mess.
Part of the problem is its fairly flat directory structure. t/ is
broken up into only a few subdirectories:
base, cmd, comp, io, lib, op, pod, pragma.
I've wedged coverage analysis into Test::Harness (not quite ready for
release yet) and ran it over Perl's core test suite to see how well
the core modules are covered. I'm not 100% sure about this data,
Devel::Coverage needs alot of work and reported alot of false
negatives, but I think I can mak
15 matches
Mail list logo
