On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:36:08PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 4/20/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe I'm thinking too hard, or maybe the results reported aren't
> > exactly as clear as they probably should be. Here's an example test and
> > its results as reported by Test::Har
On 4/20/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm thinking too hard, or maybe the results reported aren't
> exactly as clear as they probably should be. Here's an example test and
> its results as reported by Test::Harness with the TODO changes.
>
> #!perl -w
>
> use strict;
> use Te
On 20 Apr 2006, at 16:55, Michael Peters wrote:
[snip]
I'm not sure I agree that there is a difference between them. They are
both comments output by the tests. Just because one comes from the
testing routine used by the test and the other from the test itself
doesn't mean they aren't both just
(Oops. Accidentally sent this to Michael directly rather than to the
list.)
--- Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree that there is a difference between them. They
> are
> both comments output by the tests. Just because one comes from the
> testing routine used by the t
On 19 Apr 2006, at 17:12, Andrew Gianni wrote:
[snip]
We'd like to be a bit more programmatic about writing our mech
tests to test
use-case driven test-cases. I'm wondering if there are any tools or
ideas
out there to ease the process so we don't have to manually write the
numerous mech tests
Ovid wrote:
> --- Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've thought in the past about about using /^## / for non-test
>> related diagnostics
>>
>> ## Start the fribble tests
>> ok 1 - fribble foo
>> not ok 2 - fribble bar
>> # Failed test 'fribble bar'
>> # in untitled text 2 at line
--- Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've thought in the past about about using /^## / for non-test
> related diagnostics
>
> ## Start the fribble tests
> ok 1 - fribble foo
> not ok 2 - fribble bar
> # Failed test 'fribble bar'
> # in untitled text 2 at line 5.
> # got: '
On 19 Apr 2006, at 09:02, Ovid wrote:
[snip]
From a parser standpoint, there's no clean way of distinguishing that
from what the test functions are going to output. As a result, I
really think that "diag" and normal test failure information should be
marked differently (instead of the /^# / tha
On 4/20/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:22:33AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:22:33AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> 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 la
10 matches
Mail list logo
