Here is another patch. No --list anymore. Just --seed. There is also a
new test script "t/prove-shuffle.t". It touches the MANIFEST and
tweaks "t/prove-globbing.t" which depends on distribution files
matching "t/prove*.t".
Adriano.
prove-patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 04:38:45PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> One of the things that makes Perl's standard testing framework
> interesting is that everything is so decoupled. As long as something
> talks TAP you can plug it in. As well as Test::Harness, you might
> want to look at:
>
> Te
On 7/26/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, that's exactly what I was worried about. Why not just write:
> prove -b -D -d 1 2 0 3 4
> this even avoids having to write special code to handle Andy's worry about
> large lists of arguments.
I see your point and agree. Pro
On 25 Jul 2005, at 22:29, Peter Kay wrote:
http://qa.perl.org/test-modules.html has a bunch of test modules
listed.
However, there are no harnesses listed. I know Test::Harness, and I'm
going to go read about Test::Builder, but what other "meta-testing"
modules are there?
[snip]
All depend
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:51:01AM -0300, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
> Instead of giving the seed for shuffling, the list can be predetermined
> with the C argument.
>
> $ prove -b -D -d -s --list=1,2,0,3,4 0 1 2 3 4
>
> will run the same sequence everywhere, without concern for
> differences betw
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:51:01AM -0300, Adriano Ferreira ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> The whole point of this option is to allow the reproduction of a
> certain order even in a Perl that was not compiled with the same
This option has to be able to handle the case of a set of 1000 tests,
all ran
Le mardi 12 juillet 2005 à 19:35, Ian Langworth écrivait:
> I'd like to improve HTTP::Recorder. I've contacted Linda Julien
> (http://search.cpan.org/~leira/) via her CPAN email address, but I've
> received no response. The module hasn't been touched in over a year
> and every RT ticket seems to ha
On 7/25/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > prove --shuffle --list=5,4,0,1,2,3 t # the shuffle list is predetermined
>
> I'm not sure I see the utility in that last one that significantly beats
> out just reordering the arguments to prove. Do you have a use case? And
> what ha
