overhead of starting a new interpreter for each file would add up
Julien
On 3/9/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 09 March 2007 15:39, Julien Beasley wrote:
> However, and I apologize if I'm wrong about
> this, doesn't your proposed solution have to start
Thanks Ovid! This may be exactly what I'm looking for (since I'm going to
have tests in libtap and perl). However, and I apologize if I'm wrong about
this, doesn't your proposed solution have to start a new perl interpreter
for every single test file? If so, that might up being too slow for
practi
t;new( { exec => ['call']} );
$harness->runtests('SampleTest.exe');
===
Julien
On 3/8/07, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Julien Beasley wrote:
> Just to clarify.. I'm fine with running Test::Harness instead of
> TAPx::Harness. One
the languagage agnosticness of TAP.. whats the test harness to use that
doesn't care if your test programs are compiled executables, and how do you
use it? Everything I've read in TAPX::Harness implies the use of an
interpreter of some kind
Julien
On 3/8/07, Julien Beasley <[EM
I'm trying to get my project to move to TAP -- we have some perl test files
and some C++ test files. Let's say I have 2 files: test.pl, and test.exe,
the former is a perl program and the latter is a compiled program that
outputs TAP.
How do I use TAPx::Harness to run them both? I'm not really sur
Hi,
I've found that using Test::Files in a test script changes the output of
TODO tests in Test::Harness.
== begin test.pl==
use strict;
use warnings;
use lib '../../perl/lib';
use Test::More;
use Test::Files;
plan tests => 2;
TODO: {
local $TODO = "TODO Testing";
is(1, 2, "a failing test
