On 4/19/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to handle got/expected failure information in Java or C? There are
> pretty rich data structures we could put out there and YAML might help.
> That would also likely simplify a parser.
If you mean you want pluck YAML test results from a noisy input s
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19 07:20]:
> What if someone wants more diagnostic information or more
> complete failure information? We might find things useful
> enough that that we feel compelled to update TAP. If so, TAP
> needs to be versioned and we need to figure out how to
> accomoda
Please try out this dev release. I'd like to make it 2.58 tomorrow.
Thanks, demerphq for the patch.
has entered CPAN as
file: $CPAN/authors/id/P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_05.tar.gz
size: 68798 bytes
md5: 61fce5eed1556ad9d603072c07bb62ae
No action is required on your part
Request e
On 4/19/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, the patch only shows TODO pass status when no failures occur.
> >
> > Oh and obviously all of Test::Harness'es tests pass. :-)
>
> This patch doesn't apply against my latest dev version of
> Test::Harness. I'm going to have to massage it
--- Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I agree that this caused problems, those modules were relying
> on a
> > format that was not spec'ed out or documented.
>
> That is irrelevant. You put something into CPAN, get massive numbers
> of
> people using it, and leave it alone and ha
BTW, the patch only shows TODO pass status when no failures occur.
Oh and obviously all of Test::Harness'es tests pass. :-)
This patch doesn't apply against my latest dev version of
Test::Harness. I'm going to have to massage it manually.
But I like the idea. Thanks.
xoa
--
Andy Lester
On 4/18/06, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last time I checked the core has "6 TESTS UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED"
> What's the expected number of unexpected successes?
> Can it be made to be zero, even though we're testing the test modules?
>
> If so, I think that that would be useful, as i
One of my unwritten TODOs is to go through the current Perlbug
queue and
write test cases for all the currently testable problems.
Hey! That's one of my unwritten TODOs, too!
In the long term, however, it would be great if Test::Harness
recognized
individual TODO test cases that passed an
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Last time I checked the core has "6 TESTS UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED"
What's the expected number of unexpected successes?
Can it be made to be zero, even though we're testing the test modules?
If so, I think that that would be useful, as it would mean that any (real)
TODO test
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:21:37PM -0500, Steve Peters wrote:
> One of my unwritten TODOs is to go through the current Perlbug queue and
> write test cases for all the currently testable problems. My hope is
> that unexpected fixes would be caught much sooner in these cases. I've
> made a bit of
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:30:20PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Last time I checked the core has "6 TESTS UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED"
> What's the expected number of unexpected successes?
> Can it be made to be zero, even though we're testing the test modules?
>
> If so, I think that that would be u
Last time I checked the core has "6 TESTS UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED"
What's the expected number of unexpected successes?
Can it be made to be zero, even though we're testing the test modules?
If so, I think that that would be useful, as it would mean that any (real)
TODO test that unexpectedly starte
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Schwern made one small change in the STDERR format, and the recursive
cascade of failing test-testing modules hit something like 3000 CPAN
distributions.
While I agree that this caused problems, those modules were relying on a
format that was not spec
Geoffrey Young writes:
> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>
> > That is irrelevant. You put something into CPAN, get massive numbers
> > of people using it, and leave it alone and have it remain stable for
> > 4 years, it becomes an API whether you wanted it to be or not :)
>
> really?
I'm with Adam on this
Adam Kennedy wrote:
>
>>> Schwern made one small change in the STDERR format, and the recursive
>>> cascade of failing test-testing modules hit something like 3000 CPAN
>>> distributions.
>>
>>
>> While I agree that this caused problems, those modules were relying on a
>> format that was not spe
chromatic wrote:
> On Monday 17 April 2006 18:50, Ovid wrote:
>
>
>>The only problem I see with that is the occasional buffering errors I
>>see on my Mac where the STDERR and STDOUT don't line up.
>
>
> Agreed. Is it too late to send everything to STDOUT where it belongs?
just for everyone'
Schwern made one small change in the STDERR format, and the recursive
cascade of failing test-testing modules hit something like 3000 CPAN
distributions.
While I agree that this caused problems, those modules were relying on a
format that was not spec'ed out or documented.
That is irrelevant
Adam Kennedy wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
>> On Monday 17 April 2006 18:50, Ovid wrote:
>>
>>> The only problem I see with that is the occasional buffering errors I
>>> see on my Mac where the STDERR and STDOUT don't line up.
>>
>> Agreed. Is it too late to send everything to STDOUT where it belong
* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-18 09:30]:
> especially out there in the darkpan.
What about the deadpan?
SCNR,
--
#Aristotle
*AUTOLOAD=*_;sub _{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(",$\/"," ")[defined wantarray]/e;$1};
&Just->another->Perl->hacker;
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 00:20, Ovid wrote:
> As a language-independent tool, an API is silly and
> I'm a fool for shooting my keyboard off for thinking only about the
> implementation problems as opposed to its benefits.
I'm sure you're not the only person who has thought "Hey, screen scraping t
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 18:50, Ovid wrote:
The only problem I see with that is the occasional buffering errors I
see on my Mac where the STDERR and STDOUT don't line up.
Agreed. Is it too late to send everything to STDOUT where it belongs?
Unfortunately, it probably is too
--- "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that were universally true, we wouldnât have plaintext network
> protocols, would we? And I think making TAP a protocol instead of
> an API was the right choice.
As already noted, I freely admit I was wrong. If TAP was a "Perl only"
thing, I mi
Ovid wrote:
--- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Test.Simple—JavaScript. It looks and acts just like tap, although in
reality it's tracking test results in an object rather than scraping
them from a print buffer.
http://openjsan.org/doc/t/th/theory/Test/Simple/
Tracking the resul
23 matches
Mail list logo
