Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Andrew Pimlott
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:36:41PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: > What does an empty test file give you over an absent one? Cleaner build system. You simply say, for every Perl file, run pod2test to build a test file, then run all the test files. Something like: %.pm.t: %.pm pod2

Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Adrian Howard
On 11 Jun 2004, at 19:16, Andrew Pimlott wrote: [snip] 1. pod2test exits with status 1 when there are no tests. This is simple to work around, and you could argue that pod2test is right to throw up a flag for this degenerate case, but I actually think it is more useful to accept it

Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Andy Lester
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:33:44PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I prefer to eliminate extra noise. The situation I'm in is, I just > started using T::I, so only a few modules have any tests, and I would > see dozens of spurious "ok" lines for untested modules. I agree about

Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Andrew Pimlott
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:26:36PM -0600, Wiggins d Anconia wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:00:58PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: > > > Seems to me that if T:H is passed a test file, it's not unreasonable for > > > it to expect at least one test. > > > > No, not unreasonable. But I think it's

Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Wiggins d Anconia
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:00:58PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: > > Seems to me that if T:H is passed a test file, it's not unreasonable for > > it to expect at least one test. > > No, not unreasonable. But I think it's also not unreasonable to reserve > empty file to mean "no tests yet, ignore"

Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Andrew Pimlott
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:00:58PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: > Seems to me that if T:H is passed a test file, it's not unreasonable for > it to expect at least one test. No, not unreasonable. But I think it's also not unreasonable to reserve empty file to mean "no tests yet, ignore". > How abo

Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Andy Lester
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:16:36PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 2. Test::Harness::runtests complains "FAILED before any test output > arrived" on empty test files. It would be convenient if it simply > skipped them. As it is, I "grep -s" them out in my build script.

empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

2004-06-11 Thread Andrew Pimlott
When using Test::Inline, it is likely that not all perl files will have inline tests. However, in a build system, the simplest thing to do is build test scripts for all of them anyway, and have the test harness be smart enough to ignore the ones with no tests. There are two small problems: 1. p