On Apr 7, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
If you have isDeeply() there's little point to the eq* salad.
Hrm, fair enough. I'll comment them out, then...
Cheers,
David
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:17:03PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> Well, right now, isDeeply() should do the right thing. I could just
> comment out the eqArray() and eqAssoc() functions, or make them tests,
> too. That'd be pretty easy to do, actually.
If you have isDeeply() there's little point
On Apr 7, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Zee goggles, zey do nothing!!!
I thought I eliminated the radiation...
Not so different, that's what I would have done were it not for the
fact
that it alters caller(). If Javascript has no such problems then do
it,
but I suspect it does.
I ha
On Apr 7, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Ovid wrote:
Great work!
Thanks.
Output them to a Results object which, by default, sends the output to
document.write() but allows the user to redirect the output. For
example, it might be nice to have test results pop up in a separate
window while the main page loads.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:01:34PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
> >Is there a way tests to determine that a module cannot be installed on
> >a platform so that CPANPLUS or CPAN::YACSmoke can issue an "NA" (Not
> >Applicable) report?
AFAIK NA reports are issued when a Makefile.PL dies due to a "req
On Apr 6, 2005, at 7:13 AM, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
Is there a way tests to determine that a module cannot be installed on
a platform so that CPANPLUS or CPAN::YACSmoke can issue an "NA" (Not
Applicable) report?
CPANPLUS relies on module names (e.g. "Solaris::" or "Win32::") but
that is not al
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:23:59AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> Greetings fellow Perlers,
>
> I'm pleased to announce the first alpha release of my port of
> TestSimple/More/Builder to JavaScript. You can download it from:
>
> http://www.justatheory.com/downloads/TestBuilder-0.01.tar.gz
Zee
David,
Great work!
> * I have made no decisions as to where to output test results,
> diagnostics, etc. Currently, they're simply output to
> document.write().
Output them to a Results object which, by default, sends the output to
document.write() but allows the user to redirect the output.
On Apr 7, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Fergal Daly wrote:
Were you aware of JsUnit?
http://www.edwardh.com/jsunit/
Yes, it's in the "See Also" section of my docs.
I prefer the Test::More style of testing most of the time. I count
myself
lucky I've never had to use a testing framework for javascript!
I guess
Were you aware of JsUnit?
http://www.edwardh.com/jsunit/
I prefer the Test::More style of testing most of the time. I count myself
lucky I've never had to use a testing framework for javascript!
F
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:23:59AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> Greetings fellow Perlers,
>
> I'
Subject: Re: Kwalitee and has_test_*
From: David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:34:21 -0400
}What if I, as a developer, choose to run test as part of my development
}but don't ship them. Why should I make users have to spent time waiting
}for my test suite to run?
Let's ext
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
OK, now whos gonna build JPANTS? :-)
JSPANTS, you mean? I think we need a CJSPAN, first. Alias?
Cheers,
David
Let's step back a moment.
Does anyone object that CPANTS Kwalitee looks for tests? Why not apply
the same arguments against has_test_* to test themselves? What if I, as
a developer, choose to run test as part of my development but don't ship
them. Why should I make users have to spent time wa
David Wheeler wrote:
Greetings fellow Perlers,
I'm pleased to announce the first alpha release of my port of
TestSimple/More/Builder to JavaScript. You can download it from:
http://www.justatheory.com/downloads/TestBuilder-0.01.tar.gz
Very cool. Very sick. :-)
OK, now whos gonna build JPANTS?
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Andy Lester wrote:
You are a crazy man.
Best feedback I ever had. Brilliant!
D
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:23:59AM -0700, David Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the first alpha release of my port of
> TestSimple/More/Builder to JavaScript. You can download it from:
You are a crazy man.
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.pet
Greetings fellow Perlers,
I'm pleased to announce the first alpha release of my port of
TestSimple/More/Builder to JavaScript. You can download it from:
http://www.justatheory.com/downloads/TestBuilder-0.01.tar.gz
Please feel free to give it a try and let me know what you think. You
can see
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 13:22 -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> How as a module consumer would I find out that the Pod coverage is
> adequate again? Why the [unshipped] .t file in this case.
How as a module consumer would you find out that the test coverage is
adequate?
Furthermore, what if I a
Tony Bowden wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:32:31PM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
CPANTS can't check that for me, as I don't ship those tests.
They're part of my development environment, not part of my release tree.
That is true. But if you don't ship them, how do I know you bothered to
chec
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:32:31PM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> >CPANTS can't check that for me, as I don't ship those tests.
> >They're part of my development environment, not part of my release tree.
> That is true. But if you don't ship them, how do I know you bothered to
> check those t
Tony Bowden wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:56:26AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
I would go as for to say that checking the authors development
intentions via checks like Test::Pod::Coverage, Test::Strict,
Test::Distribution, etc is just as important, if not more, than just
checkong synta
* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-06T23:29:40]
> >Finally, the scoreboard does have a purpose. Part of the original idea of
> >CPANTS was to provide an automated checklist for a good distribution.
> >
> >Has a README... check
> >Declares a $VERSION... check
> >
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:56:26AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> I would go as for to say that checking the authors development
> intentions via checks like Test::Pod::Coverage, Test::Strict,
> Test::Distribution, etc is just as important, if not more, than just
> checkong syntax and that
This is an interesting point and triggered the thought in my mind that
CPANTS "Kwalitee" is really testing *distributions* not modules -- i.e.
the quality of the packaging, not the underlying code. That's
important, too, but quite arbitrary -- insisting that distributions test
pod and pod cove
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Adding a kwalitee check for a test that runs Devel::Cover by default
might on the surface appear to meet this goal, but I hope people
recognize it as a bad idea.
Why, then, is suggesting that people ship tests for POD errors and
coverage a good idea?
Although I've now added the
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:29:40PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
I did most of what you asked for on thursday, but in a hurry, so it might be
buggy..
> Where's the per-module page on CPANTS that lists these simple check/fail?
http://cpants.dev.zsi.at/metrics/
http://cpants.dev.zsi.at/metrics/A
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:17:40PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> >Adding a kwalitee check for a test that runs Devel::Cover by default
> >might on the surface appear to meet this goal, but I hope people
> >recognize it as a bad idea.
> >
> >Why, then, is suggesting that people ship tests for PO
Adding a kwalitee check for a test that runs Devel::Cover by default
might on the surface appear to meet this goal, but I hope people
recognize it as a bad idea.
Why, then, is suggesting that people ship tests for POD errors and
coverage a good idea?
Although I've now added the automated inclusion
David Cantrell wrote:
Thomas Klausner wrote:
I cannot check POD coverage because Pod::Coverage executes the code.
No it doesn't. That said, if you don't want to run the code you're
testing, you are, errm, limiting yourself rather badly.
Do YOU want to run all of CPAN?
I certainly don't.
Bulk te
Finally, the scoreboard does have a purpose. Part of the original idea of
CPANTS was to provide an automated checklist for a good distribution.
Has a README... check
Declares a $VERSION... check
Well behaved tarball... no
And as far as I can tell, got sidetracked a
Hear hear. I'd rather see better-kwalitee kwalitee tests :)
Once the number and value of the kwalitee tests gets higher, it should
be expected that people are almost never going to score perfect.
Adam K
Johan Vromans wrote:
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Has a README... check
B
31 matches
Mail list logo
