On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 05:06:01AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Test::More 0.71 fixed a subtle bug where a call to use_ok() inside a BEGIN
block without a plan would be silently ignored. That is...
use Test::More;
BEGIN { use_ok('Exporter') } # for example
plan
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:03:13PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-Simple-0.71.tar.gz
BTW, when to you plan to submit a patch for this against blead?
Magic p5p fairies usually take care of that.
On 19/09/2007, Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:03:13PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-Simple-0.71.tar.gz
BTW, when to you plan to submit a patch for this against
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Cantrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Number::Phone::UK::Data contains a big chunk of binary gibberish at the
end of the file (it's an embedded DBM::Deep database), in a __DATA__
segment. That includes several lines that match /^=/ and so might
look like
Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
And tests now pass with following change.
It takes care of
a/ pushing the right dirs in @INC when running in the perl core test suite
b/ fixes the $VERSION of Dummy.pm. Apparently bleadperl comes with
another version of Dummy.pm than Test::Simple don't ask
On 9/12/2007 7:41 PM, James E Keenan wrote:
I'd also like to hear any other coverage-related ideas you think would
be worthwhile bringing up at this workshop.
Here's my 2ยข
For applications with code in multiple modules use the options for including and
excluding files (-ignore, +inc, -select,
This release unfixes a bug. 0.71 fixed a bug where if you ran a use_ok()
inside a BEGIN block without a plan it would silently fail and the test would
continue. For example...
use Test::More;
plan tests = 10;
BEGIN { use_ok(Some::Module) }
It looks like you planned
--- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because of this I'm TEMPORARILY rolling the fix back at least a week
to give
CPAN authors a little breathing room to make their fixes. The fix is
usually to plan in a BEGIN block.
This has happened a couple of times now. Why don't you use
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 22:46:19 Ovid wrote:
This has happened a couple of times now. Why don't you use release
devel versions so that these issues become less serious in the future?
In your experience, do devel versions get the kind of testing that would catch
these issues
