On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:30:39AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 12:51:19AM -0400, barries wrote:
> >1) skip dies, Test::Named::end() "catches" it, emits message
> >2) todo_because sets a flag, is(), etc. check flag, T::N::begin clea
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 06:04:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 10:17:07AM -0400, barries wrote:
> > The only pain I see there is the hardcoded test numbers in both places
>
> Yes, that's just an artifact of how HiRes.t is written. It rolls its
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 03:20:29AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Okay, I'm trying to think of a better way to implement skip than
> what's currently the plan in Test::More (look at the man page to see
> what the idea is). As an example, I'm looking at the Test::HiRes
> tests, since it does a
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 07:31:18PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I'm running into alot of problems with this:
>
> use Test::Simple tests => 42;
>
> The problem is, Test::Simple expects you to specify the number of
> tests when you load it and thus *at your script's compile time*. It
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 01:52:25PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> How would you like it...
Easy there, down boy.
> Here's perhaps a simple compromise.
That is nice, thank you.
- Barrie
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 10:08:16AM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking more along the lines of making the default name available
> > in something like $Pod::Tests::current_name and tweaking Test.pm and
> > others to look for it if a name isn't explicitly passed. That way the
>
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 08:10:43AM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 08:55:53AM -0400, barries wrote:
> > Below's a patch that adds #line support to Pod::Tests, making it easier
> > to find the original line the test is on. This makes output from
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 08:10:43AM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> So basically you want a default name for a block of tests? I can do
> that, basically by calling an ok() that's a wrapper around Test::ok()
> and will watch for a default name being set.
I was thinking more along the lines o
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 08:55:53AM -0400, barries wrote:
> Below's a patch that adds #line support to Pod::Tests, making it easier
> to find the original line the test is on. This makes output from
> SelfTest trivial.
Gack. "This makes interpreting output from SelfTest triv
Below's a patch that adds #line support to Pod::Tests, making it easier
to find the original line the test is on. This makes output from
SelfTest trivial.
I've also really been wishing for
=for testing foo()
ok( foo(1), 2 ) ;
ok( foo(3), 4 ) ;
ok( foo(5), 6 ) ;
ok
Below is a patch that uses #line at the start of each snipped POD
segment to give me more meaningful error messages.
I think it would be nice to name batches of tests like so:
=for testing foo()
=begin testing foo()
to save typing and ease copy-and-pasting when creating subs that are
lik
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:40:25PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:28:34PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > I mean old-style single arg calls:
> >
> > ok( 1 ) ;
>
> That's perfectly valid, too. Or did we leave each other somewhere?
I w
> > especially if you can detect old-style ok() calls and give a helpful
> > suggestion like "did you forget to convert from Test::ok to
> > Testing::ok", as perl does in some other cases.
>
> How can you tell? Testing::ok() nromally takes two arguments, so does
> Test::ok(). And they look simi
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:22:26PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> (This somehow accidentally drifted off list)
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:44:15AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > I tmeans that I was up too early... What I should have said was that
> > you could then do
&g
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:38:01PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:45:29AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > > I'd like to alter what Test::Harness accepts as little as possible,
> > > more in the interest of keeping the harness rules simple than any
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:42AM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:56:37AM -0500, barries wrote:
> > You may want to settle on using underscores everywhere or nowhere in the
> > interests of consistency.
>
> Yeah. Underscores read better b
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:28:31PM +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> BEGIN { plan tests => $Num_Tests }
> # or
> BEGIN { noplan }
> # or
> BEGIN { skipall }
You may want to settle on using underscores everywhere or nowhere in the
interests of consistency.
Perhaps it would be a tad e
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:39:07PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > > (why is Filter required... just to read the test POD?
> >
> > It made the implementation of SelfTest trivial: about 120 lines of code
> > that mostly just throws away everything not =for testing. I like the
> > semantic t
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:29:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:39:59PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > Had a chance to look over SelfTest's POD yet?
>
> I'm looking at it right now...
Cool, thanks for the feedback.
> there might be less c
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:08:01AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:38:43PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > <...neat expansion on do_all_tests() concept snipped...>
> >
> > > Well, it'
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:38:43PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> I like this, but I'm not sure it really goes far enough.
I'm leaning against the do_all_tests() concept as an over-reaction to
the current state of the art, where you gotta count all those tests
yourself. More below, but what I'd
Is available at
http://slaysys.com/src/SelfTest-0.01.tar.gz
Here's the POD such as it is, comment & test away. I will be splitting
it into light & SelfTest::Heavy at some point.
NAME
SelfTest - Inline testing of code from command line
SYNOPSIS
## In a module MyModule: (can also
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:39:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Oh, maybe I didn't make it clear. I'm not worried about the test
> author having Pod::Tests, or the latest version of MakeMaker or
> whatever other patch/modules you need. I'm worried about those to
> whom the code is distri
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:48:31PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:59:24PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > > todo({ $obj->fooble == 42 });
misread the == as a => for some reason, sorry. I'm home with a couple
of rambunctious tots today, inter
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:34:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:18:14PM -0500, barries wrote:
> >do_all_tests(
> > get_data_set => sub {$data_set = get_data_set() ;
> >
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:16:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:56:46PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > It's no more difficult to learn except for having to deal with closures.
>
> Closures are not an easy thing to learn. Trust me, I've been
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:05:47PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:38:22PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
>
> >
> > This would make for very succinct easy to maintain test
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:37:12AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why have a static count? Rocco (I think) made the point that
> sometimes tests will just mysteriously never run! And if those tests
> came at the end of the run (or the test program aborted but exited
> normally for some reason
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 11:28:25PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 07:27:10PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Same here. But you have to edit the number of tests anyway, and I think
> you _should_ have to.
What's the benefit of maintaining a count? Perl's a lot better
29 matches
Mail list logo
