Re: [tap-l] SKIP_ALL tests should not get hidden

On 20 Nov 2007, at 23:39, Michael G Schwern wrote: Do we like that? Test::Harness 2 put it on it's own line mostly to avoid wrapping off the right side of the screen. I still lean in that direction. Hmm. I'm kind of hooked on the new behaviour now. It puts a summary column right where I

Re: [tap-l] SKIP_ALL tests should not get hidden

Andy Armstrong wrote: > I've added logic that produces output like this: > > 13:54] andy $ prove t/sample-tests/skipall t/sample-tests/ > skipall_nomsg t/sample-tests/simple > t/sample-tests/skipall..skipped: rope > t/sample-tests/skipall_nomsgskipped: (no reason given) > t/sample-tes

Re: Dropping 5.5 support from my modules.

* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-20 20:50]: > If there is some hidden, silent cache of dedicated 5.5 users > out there, maybe this announcement will flush them out. Question is only, “flush them out” in what sense… :-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Dropping 5.5 support from my modules.

Slaven Rezic wrote: > Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why make this change now? I've always been frustrated at being hamstrung >> from >> using "new" features of perl. The Perl Survey results is what pushed me over >> the edge. [1] Only 6% of the respondents say they used 5.5.x

Re: Dropping 5.5 support from my modules.

Gabor Szabo wrote: > I would suggest for those who are really interested in OPS (Old Perl Support) > to run the tests of the module(s) on OP and report them to CPAN Testers. > That way we'll be able to fetch the > "latest version passing its test on OP" for every module on any specific OP > right f

Re: Deferred Plans

* Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-20 16:25]: > I don't get this. Why is saying "I know this test script > outputs 8 test results" at the start better than saying it > at the end? I assume that if you knew up front how many tests you are going to run, then you’d just say it. So you’d de

Re: New proposed CPANTS metric: prereq_matches_use

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 04:30:51PM -0600, Jonathan Rockway wrote: > I've been yelled at in bug reports and on IRC for adding core modules as > prereqs So close the bugs with "no bug found" and /ignore the twits on irc. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist The Law of Daves: in any ga

Re: Deferred Plans

On Nov 20, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Adrian Howard wrote: Then you get an error because you have said that you'll defer the plan, and you didn't. That there is a "there's a plan coming later" part is what I missed. Now I get it. -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:pe

Re: Deferred Plans

On 19 Nov 2007, at 23:04, A. Pagaltzis wrote: [snip] A deferred plan is clearly not as good as a predeclared plan, but is definitely much safer than no plan at all. [snip] I don't get this. Why is saying "I know this test script outputs 8 test results" at the start better than saying it at t

Re: Deferred Plans

On 19 Nov 2007, at 23:08, Andy Lester wrote: On Nov 19, 2007, at 5:04 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: A deferred plan is clearly not as good as a predeclared plan, but is definitely much safer than no plan at all. But what if something blows up before getting to the deferred plan? Then you don

Re: New proposed CPANTS metric: prereq_matches_use

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 03:03:51PM -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Monday 19 November 2007 14:30:51 Jonathan Rockway wrote: > > > I think the real solution, though, is to agree that the perl interpreter > > without all of the core modules installed isn't Perl.  (I'm not a big > > fan of core modules,

Re: New proposed CPANTS metric: prereq_matches_use

On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 09:47:57PM -0800, Matisse Enzer wrote: > On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:04 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >So in order to make everything work robustly, distros should > >explicitly list every single module they explicitly use ? no > >shortcuts, no implications. > basically, I agree compl

Re: My list of small quirks

- Original Message > From: Matisse Enzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Should be fairly easy to implement with the new Test::Harness. > What > > syntax would be desired? Also, it seems to me that you've two > > different cases. Have the entire suite BAIL_ON_FAIL or have an > > individual

Re: getting better harness output with Test::Class

On 20 Nov 2007, at 08:37, Ovid wrote: To be fair, I'd prefer to see the begin and end tokens indented, too, as I think that's much easier for vertical (human) scanning. I can tell at a glance what the top level tests are and that they passed. Agreed. Although funnily enough I originally

Re: Deferred Plans

On 19 Nov 2007, at 23:04, chromatic wrote: I guess I'm not seeing why a deferred plan is better than no plan at all. Seems to me the whole point of a plan is that you know up front how many they're gonna be. There's that, and there's that Ovid's tests take too long to run when you time all

Re: getting better harness output with Test::Class

- Original Message > From: Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Test_Groups > http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Test_Blocks I prefer test blocks for readability, but the example in the wiki is wrong. Remove the 'non-TAP' stuff and it doesn

Re: Deferred Plans

- Original Message > From: Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think we really need to reach a decision on > > > > http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Test_Groups versus > > http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Test_Blocks > > It looks like the con on both of these proposals

Re: Dropping 5.5 support from my modules.

Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why make this change now? I've always been frustrated at being hamstrung from > using "new" features of perl. The Perl Survey results is what pushed me over > the edge. [1] Only 6% of the respondents say they used 5.5.x as their > *minimum* versio

Re: Deferred Plans

- Original Message > From: Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I guess I'm not seeing why a deferred plan is better than no plan at > all. Seems to me the whole point of a plan is that you know up front > how many they're gonna be. I've not explained myself well. Sorry about that. T

Re: Deferred Plans

- Original Message > From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There's that, and there's that Ovid's tests take too long to run > when you time all of the startup costs. The runtime of the tests is completely orthogonal to this problem. > I'm having trouble convincing myself that the right