On Wednesday 02 July 2003 00:25, Adrian Howard wrote:
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:07 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
The footer doesn't indicates that the correct number of tests ran
(that's the plan's job), it just shows that a test script completed
without error.
I think that would be useful.
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:07 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 20:15, Adrian Howard wrote:
Add an explicit test script finished footer?
But how does the footer-adder know that the correct number of tests
ran. You
would need to declare a plan to run x additional extensions
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 20:15, Adrian Howard wrote:
Add an explicit test script finished footer?
But how does the footer-adder know that the correct number of tests ran. You
would need to declare a plan to run x additional extensions at which point
you're doing sub-plans.
I suppose I'm
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:13:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Saturday 28 June 2003 02:51, Michael G Schwern wrote:
When I merged Test::Simple with Test::More I left a Test-More tarball lying
around containing a Makefile.PL which simply died saying download
Test-Simple instead.
That's
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:09:26PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
I just thought of a big problem with plan extensions. If the script silently
eat's itself just before you extend the plan, then you don't know that
anything went wrong.
It would have to also exit normally. That is rare.
--
Is
On Saturday 28 June 2003 02:51, Michael G Schwern wrote:
When I merged Test::Simple with Test::More I left a Test-More tarball lying
around containing a Makefile.PL which simply died saying download
Test-Simple instead.
That's OK for a merge (or you could have an empty archive with a
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:13:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
Is there a way to
know if Makefile.PL is being run by CPAN.pm?
Not as far as I know, but Jos tells me that there should be some way in
the next version of CPANPLUS.
My
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 07:53 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
Consider the following.
use Test::More;
use Test::Warn::None;
plan tests = 42;
To make this work I'd have to overhaul the internal Test::Builder
planning
Hiya,
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 07:09 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:49, Adrian Howard wrote:
The thread from the start of May about having optional / extendable
plans supported by Test::Harness would seem to be a good match for
this
feature.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
script didn't emit any warnings. Just add
use Test::More::None;
to the top your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 23-Jun-03 Michael G Schwern carved into stone:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Tels wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
script didn't emit any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 24-Jun-03 Michael G Schwern carved into stone:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Tels wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
Good idea. Too bad about the plan calculation hackery necesssary. :(
hat
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:37, Tels wrote:
Actually, I can see that Test::Warn::None could make the no_warnings() line
obsolete by calling this automatically in an END block. So:
It IS obsolete. I DOES call it from an END block ;-)
F
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:22, Michael G Schwern wrote:
use Test::More::None;
Typo?
Yeso.
hat class=devel
Can't nowarings() call Test::More::plan_add(1) or something like this?
/hat
Consider the following.
use Test::More;
use Test::Warn::None;
plan tests = 42;
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:04, Tels wrote:
It IS obsolete. I DOES call it from an END block ;-)
Uh - *hides in a corner for the rest of the day*
It happens to the best of us.
I've updated the docs to make this more clear.
Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly
Fergal Daly wrote:
Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly happy with
None,
+1 for ::Auto.
BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
(via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
testing for warnings presence/absence on
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:36, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
+1 for ::Auto.
BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
(via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
testing for warnings presence/absence on certain conditions.
(Avoiding to span perl
All this make sure no warnings fired is good thinking. But why not
roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
xoa
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 20:04, Andy Lester wrote:
All this make sure no warnings fired is good thinking. But why not
roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
Possibly...
...except how does Test::Harness know the
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:55, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I like Test::Warn::None or some variation on it. Or even Test::NoWarnings.
Doesn't have to sit in the Test::Warn namespace.
Test::NoWarnings sounds good to me. What is the correct etiquette for
abandoning a namespace? Just delete the
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 20:31, Michael G Schwern wrote:
If you want to do it to a whole test suite, PERL5OPT=-MTest::Warn::None
comes
to mind.
That's cool, I never saw that before.
It's also a pretty convincing argument for an I'm going to add an extra test
method in Test::Builder,
F
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
Consider the following.
use Test::More;
use Test::Warn::None;
plan tests = 42;
To make this work I'd have to overhaul the internal Test::Builder planning
system to allow Test::Warn::None to say I'm going to
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:37:36PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly happy with
None,
Test::Warn::Auto doesn't say anything about its main purpose: to ensure
that you have no warnings. Instead it documents an implementation detail,
that
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:36:52PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
(via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
testing for warnings presence/absence on certain
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:04:25PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
All this make sure no warnings fired is good thinking. But why not
roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
Hi,
I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
script didn't emit any warnings. Just add
use Test::More::None;
to the top your test script, update your plan (if you've got one) and that's
27 matches
Mail list logo
