Re: done_testing()

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: >> If you're referring to having two tests with the same number, >> that's perfectly valid TAP which will cause the suite to fail. >> Test::Builder should support it whether we use it for sub-plans >> or not. > > I agree with that. Let me try again: > > I’m saying that

Re: done_testing()

* Michael G Schwern [2009-02-19 06:35]: > Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > But injecting artificial test results seems like a fairly big > > modification to the format’s semantics to me, and I’m not > > comfortable with the idea of doing that for no greater reason > > than that the existing codebase

Re: done_testing()

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Michael G Schwern [2009-02-18 22:45]: >> Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: >>> * Michael G Schwern [2009-02-18 21:55]: One of the issues with that approach is Test::Builder's history can't store test #2 twice. So history is lost. >>> Shouldn’t this be fixed? >> S

Re: done_testing()

On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: Shouldn’t this be fixed? Sure, but how? I don’t know. But injecting artificial test results seems like a fairly big modification to the format’s semantics to me, and I’m not comfortable with the idea of doing that for no greater reason

Re: done_testing()

* Michael G Schwern [2009-02-18 22:45]: > Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Michael G Schwern [2009-02-18 21:55]: > >> One of the issues with that approach is Test::Builder's > >> history can't store test #2 twice. So history is lost. > > > > Shouldn’t this be fixed? > > Sure, but how? I don’t kn

Re: Make TAP::Harness Output Failures Diagnostics?

On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: Sending comments to STDOUT has been the standard way of hiding comments from the user for a long time. If we started displaying them by default, suddenly silently passing tests would start spewing all sorts of random junk violating the

Re: Make TAP::Harness Output Failures Diagnostics?

David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:04 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > >> Of course if I use -v, it passes `verbosity => 1` to TAP::Harness, but >> I'd love to be able to see the failure diagnostics without having to >> see all of the passing test TAP output, too. Is there some way to ge

Re: Make TAP::Harness Output Failures Diagnostics?

On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:04 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: Of course if I use -v, it passes `verbosity => 1` to TAP::Harness, but I'd love to be able to see the failure diagnostics without having to see all of the passing test TAP output, too. Is there some way to get TAP::Harness to pass through

Make TAP::Harness Output Failures Diagnostics?

Howdy, When I run prove/TAP::Harness against a Perl test, I can see failures even when not using verbose mode because, IIRC, that data is sent to STDERR and ignored by TAP::Harness: prove t/base.t t/base1/316 # Failed test '... And now strict is turned on' # at t/base.t line 34. #

Re: done_testing()

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Michael G Schwern [2009-02-18 21:55]: >> One of the issues with that approach is Test::Builder's history >> can't store test #2 twice. So history is lost. > > Shouldn’t this be fixed? Sure, but how? Internally, fine, it can be stored using a list of lists. But th

Re: done_testing()

* Michael G Schwern [2009-02-18 21:55]: > One of the issues with that approach is Test::Builder's history > can't store test #2 twice. So history is lost. Shouldn’t this be fixed? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Test skip()'ing weirdness

Here are the versions of Test::Harness for each case. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Pedro Figueiredo wrote: > > Darwin (10.5.6, Leopard) > perl 5.8.8: > $ prove foo.t > foook > All tests successful. > Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.02 cusr 0.00 > csys = 0.0

Re: done_testing()

David E. Wheeler wrote: > 1..4? God no. I think this: > > # Planning 2 more tests at foo.t line 3. > ok 1 - First test > # Looks like you planned 2 tests, but only 1 was run > # at foo.t line 6. > ok 3 - Second test > ok 4 - Third test > 1..3 > > That is, all tests should pass, but the tes

Re: Test skip()'ing weirdness

Actually, I think he was fairly clear. For test runs with skipped tests, you get different outputs: No mention of skipped tests: All tests successful. Mention of skipped tests, but not listing the reasons: 1/1 skipped: various reasons All tests successful, 1 subtest skipped. Ment

Re: Test skip()'ing weirdness

Pedro Figueiredo wrote: > I've had a report from a user regarding some tests under Darwin (10.5.6, > Leopard, I have no idea if it happens on earlier versions too). I've > since noticed the behaviour under 5.10 on Linux is not what I expected > either. My orbital mind reading laser got hit by an I

Re: Test skip()'ing weirdness

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 10:14:14 Pedro Figueiredo wrote: > 5.8.8 is the default system Perl in both Darwin and Linux, 5.10.0 was > installed manually by me. Can anyone please shed some light on this? Check the version of Test::Harness installed; that's what interprets and reports the TAP e

Test skip()'ing weirdness

Hi, I've had a report from a user regarding some tests under Darwin (10.5.6, Leopard, I have no idea if it happens on earlier versions too). I've since noticed the behaviour under 5.10 on Linux is not what I expected either. This is the test code: #!perl -T use strict; use Test::More test

Re: done_testing()

* David E. Wheeler [2009-02-06 04:05]: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: >> Or would that be 1..4? Having an overall plan violation on >> top of the plan addition failure seems a bit much, because the >> number of tests run was correct (until we added one of our >> own). > >

Re: TAP::Data or TAPx::Data?

* nadim khemir [2009-02-11 18:35]: > TAP::DOM maybe. ++, in case it still matters. (Catching up to old mail.) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //