tl;dr version: Is it better for event handlers to have one method per type of
event? Or one method to accept all events? Or something else?
Currently event handlers (called EventWatchers) in Test::Builder2 implement
two methods: accept_event and accept_result. accept_result() is a special
cas
On 2011.10.26 12:55 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> To be specific, I picture the interface as one of:
>
> a) subtest_start() must return the subtest handler object
> (might be a new object, or just $self)
>
> or:
> b) subtest_start() must return the $invocant, $method, %args for
> construc
On 10/25/11 11:56 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I keep looking at subtests and keeping thinking that if there wasn't a test
count to manage, would we need subtests? Do we need all that complexity? If
it's just about the test count, can it be managed a better way?
I haven't followed this discu
Adrian forgot to send this to the list.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Do we need subtests in TAP?
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:14:31 +0100
From: Adrian Howard
To: Michael G Schwern
Hey there,
On 26 Oct 2011, at 04:56, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I understand wanting "blocks of
> "David" == David Golden writes:
David> I wonder how many people are using subtests with a plan and how many
David> are replying on the implied "done_testIng" feature.
I'm teaching it now, and I find it very valuable.
subtest 'network tests' => sub {
$ENV{NETWORK_TESTS} or
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Wednesday 26 October 2011 09:51:
>> Note that you should be able to allow e.g. "the new subtest object
>> is just a copy of me" and other advanced usage without ceding all of
>> the mechanics to the handler object.
>
>Ooh, good idea. I think that's the clincher right
On 2011.10.25 10:54 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> I'm only working from intuition and my understanding of what you
> described as the problem. If you try to implement a few scenarios of
> special handler functionality using each design approach, that might
> help clarify the issues.
All I really h
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I keep looking at subtests and keeping thinking that if there wasn't a test
> count to manage, would we need subtests? Do we need all that complexity? If
> it's just about the test count, can it be managed a better way?
>
> I under
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I keep looking at subtests and keeping thinking that if there wasn't a test
> count to manage, would we need subtests? Do we need all that complexity? If
> it's just about the test count, can it be managed a better way?
I find several
