On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 14:19 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to capture
> STDERR?
I redid that patch, removing that dubious feature, and I think Andy
applied the second version. T::H::S now interprets any diagnostics and
associates
On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to
capture
STDERR?
No, all my patch did was turn off buffering in the same way that
Test::Builder does.
Regards,
David
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:05:13PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> >The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
> >a reason for this beyond "It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the
> >appropriate test numbers"? (I agree with that, but I'm willing to take
> >my chances
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 06:42:57PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> The TAP documentation in 2.47_01 says:
>
> A harness must only read TAP output from standard output and not from
> standard error.
>
> The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
> a reason for this bey
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:48:59AM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Agreed. IMO the TAP protocol should confine itself to a single
> (arbitrary) data stream. It shouldn't even specify STDOUT;
> leaving that as an implementation detail makes the protocol more
> useful (ie., we should be able to commu
On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
For any brave Phalanx folks who wish to target MakeMaker I can point
you at
some critically deficient areas of its testing.
1) XS. There is absolutely no testing of XS code. The primary
problem is
determining if the user has a working buil
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> we should be able to communicate TAP via HTTP, SMTP, etc.).
TAP::Lite anyone?
/me ducks
;)
--Geoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
> On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:42 PM, chromatic wrote:
>
>> The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
>> a reason for this beyond "It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the
>> appropriate test numbers"? (I agree with that, but I'm
For any brave Phalanx folks who wish to target MakeMaker I can point you at
some critically deficient areas of its testing.
1) XS. There is absolutely no testing of XS code. The primary problem is
determining if the user has a working build chain. I think Module::Build
has code to do this and
