On Aug 10, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Ovid wrote:
--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had actually submitted a patch to 'prove' a long time ago which
allowed prove to accept a pattern and only run tests whose
filenames
match said pattern. It was never applied, so I assume Andy has
some
r
--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I had actually submitted a patch to 'prove' a long time ago which
> > allowed prove to accept a pattern and only run tests whose
> filenames
> > match said pattern. It was never applied, so I assume Andy has
> some
> > reason why this might not be a
> I had actually submitted a patch to 'prove' a long time ago which
> allowed prove to accept a pattern and only run tests whose filenames
> match said pattern. It was never applied, so I assume Andy has some
> reason why this might not be a good idea. Andy?
Tuits. How long ago was this?
--
A
--- Jonathan Swartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. As I said in my email, this doesn't allow the convenience of
> specifying a pattern, the way that TEST_METHOD does.
I had actually submitted a patch to 'prove' a long time ago which
allowed prove to accept a pattern and only run tests whos
On Aug 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Ovid wrote:
--- Jonathan Swartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm wondering if any Test::Class (or Test::Unit, etc.) users out
there have yearned for a more convenient way to specify which classes
and methods to run, and if there's any reasonable way to add this
c
--- Jonathan Swartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm wondering if any Test::Class (or Test::Unit, etc.) users out
> there have yearned for a more convenient way to specify which classes
> and methods to run, and if there's any reasonable way to add this
> capability to prove, given that the
