Re: BAIL_OUT and parallel tests

On 15 Jan 2008, at 23:08, Ovid wrote: What should parallel tests do if a BAIL_OUT is encountered? I think all parallel tests currently running should be allowed to finish so they can attempt to cleanup, but no more tests should be started. Does this sound reasonable? Yes. We need to disp

BAIL_OUT and parallel tests

What should parallel tests do if a BAIL_OUT is encountered? I think all parallel tests currently running should be allowed to finish so they can attempt to cleanup, but no more tests should be started. Does this sound reasonable? Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/pe

Re: TAP and Bail out!

# from Geoffrey Young # on Tuesday 15 January 2008 11:49: >what I think many are asking for is for Test::Builder to be able to >issue the appropriate TAP on $condition. Where $condition is a run-time option set at the command-line, not hardcoded into the test. Writing "or BAIL_OUT(...)" in the

TAP and Bail out!

hi all :) quite honestly, I'm completely perplexed by this entire discussion. the people involved are very smart, so I find myself scratching my head as to the disconnect... is bail out not a part of the TAP specification? according to http://podwiki.hexten.net/podwiki.pl?page=TAP TAP c

Re: A New Test::Builder

Ovid wrote: Test::Harness used to be very limited. We couldn't do a lot with it, but when we started testing, most of us didn't do a lot with it. As we understood more about testing, we understood better many things we wanted. As a result, Schwern posted a great plan for rewriting Test::Harnes

Re: The spewing problem.

* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-15 20:30]: > Care to explain the term 'monkeypatch'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_patch Basically, grubbing around in someone else’s guts. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: The Star Trek: Generations problem.

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 11:28:24 Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-15 19:45]: > > People who add an environment variable specific to the Perl 5 > > version of this new T::B workalike to their command line will > > not be pleasantly surprised when tests writt

Re: The spewing problem.

Ovid wrote: --- Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However I am yet to see anything other than a monkeypatch on Ovid's journal, and an incomplete patch linked earlier on the thread. Care to explain the term 'monkeypatch'? I've always heard of it as injecting code into someone elses [brok

Re: The Star Trek: Generations problem.

* chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-15 19:45]: > People who add an environment variable specific to the Perl 5 > version of this new T::B workalike to their command line will > not be pleasantly surprised when tests written in different > languages or with different backends fail to produce th

Re: The spewing problem.

--- Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However I > am yet to see anything other than a monkeypatch on Ovid's journal, > and an incomplete patch linked earlier on the thread. Care to explain the term 'monkeypatch'? Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl

Re: The Star Trek: Generations problem.

--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People who add an environment variable specific to the Perl 5 version > of this > new T::B workalike to their command line will not be pleasantly > surprised > when tests written in different languages or with different backends > fail to > produce the

Re: The spewing problem.

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-14 17:05]: >> it's useful to me because I say it is. personally I don't feel >> the need to defend something many people would like to see this >> like we're being forced to here. > > Yeah, agreed. Why is everyone so dogmat

Re: A New Test::Builder

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 03:18:11 Ovid wrote: > Now we're starting to see more and more limitations with Test::Builder. > I don't want this to come across as bashing chromatic or Schwern, the > two people who've done most of the great work in writing this and > related code. They produced a gr

Re: The Star Trek: Generations problem.

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 00:15:04 Ovid wrote: > If alternate TAP producers don't want to implent die/bail on fail, so > what?  As long as they aren't producing incompatible TAP, it's OK TO > HAVE DIFFERENT FEATURES. People who add an environment variable specific to the Perl 5 version of this

Re: [perl #49504] Outdated Test::Harness::Straps

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 05:13:38 Ovid wrote: > Why the hell is everyone giving imacat a hard time about this? That's > just plain mean :( The dependencies I list for my distributions are not suggestions. Without those dependencies, my code won't work. Testing my code without installing tho

Re: [perl #49504] Outdated Test::Harness::Straps

--- John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a valid reason to perform competely 'tabula rasa' testing, > where the > only things installed are the base packages. It's for testing > upgrading the > infrastructure modules themselves (see above). That does not mean it's the only reason f

A New Test::Builder

Test::Harness used to be very limited. We couldn't do a lot with it, but when we started testing, most of us didn't do a lot with it. As we understood more about testing, we understood better many things we wanted. As a result, Schwern posted a great plan for rewriting Test::Harness. It worked

Re: The Star Trek: Generations problem.

On 15 Jan 2008, at 02:17, Adam Kennedy wrote: For the record, I don't like the approach of requiring the failure condition to have the ability to do math (even if it's just counting). The harness does the math. It complicates things quite a bit, and means that it will require more than thr

Re: The spewing problem.

--- Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, agreed. Why is everyone so dogmatic and prescriptive? What > happened to giving people enough rope to hang themselves if they > really want to? Didn't you hear? There's only one way to do it ;) Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://ww

Re: The spewing problem.

* Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-14 17:05]: > it's useful to me because I say it is. personally I don't feel > the need to defend something many people would like to see this > like we're being forced to here. Yeah, agreed. Why is everyone so dogmatic and prescriptive? What happened t

Re: The Star Trek: Generations problem.

--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Running tests or not running tests or ceasing to run tests as they're > running is *not* T::B's problem. Could you please send Schwern a patch to remove all traces of the BAIL_OUT functionality? > You cannot solve it reliably at the T::B level. That's