On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:57:45PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> I also understand that I'm no doubt in a minority of one on this issue,
> and that everyone else's brain is wired the other way, and that in any
> event, even if my argument has some merit, it is far too late in the
> game to do a
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 17:57 +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> So what I *really* think about Perl's test reporting is that the results
> are shown in the wrong order, and that it would also be better to use a
> less ambiguous word than 'got'. 'actual' would be nice.
> # Failed test "this is a re
Michael G Schwern wrote:
[...]
This is what I morphed it into.
/Users/schwern/tmp/duringNOK 1
# Failed test (/Users/schwern/tmp/during.t at line 5)
# got: '23'
# expected: '42'
/Users/schwern/tmp/duringNOK 2
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:23:48PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:27:41PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > OK, but if we remove that, the Stmt goes to ~70% wich is still
> > shockingly low for such an important module. It is also very distressing
> > that the Sub
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:00:39PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Covering the XS portion of the code with gcov is possible, and Devel::Cover
> >will create all kinds of nice webpages and statistics for you too.
> >Paul Johnson may have this written up somewhere
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 07:31:49PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> The "total" produced by Devel::Cover can be deceiving. Its a simple
> average and not taking into account things like the fact that
> Mysql::Statement is 171 lines while DBD::mysql is 1753. So
For statement coverage the value
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:50:09PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> Also, amidst all this, I'm looking at a way to do "verbose but only on
> tests that are errors" mode for Test::Harness and prove.
I'm not sure quite how well it fits with this, but I'd be really pleased
if you were able to add a "stop
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:00:39PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I always knew they would be less than perfect, I just had no idea the 2nd
> most popular would be this bad.
Err, wait... "popular"? The order listed on http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/100/
doesn't refer to popularlity.
--
Michael
