On 24/09/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-24 02:20]:
Here's the problem though just as likely, no. It depends on
the author's intent. What is the user supposed to do when
confronted with a message that means there might be a problem,
there
On 19 Sep 2006, at 10:36, David Cantrell wrote:
Adrian Howard wrote:
Yeah - it's something I've noticed over the last year or so. I'm
talking to people less about you should write tests, and much
more about you should write /good/ tests.
What do people think are *good* tests?
[snip]
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:47:02PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
Belated response. For me good tests suites:
* are good code (i.e. DRY, well factored, intention revealing, etc.)
* encourage good design (ala TDD)
* fail for bugs, but not refactoring
* only fail for bugs in the thing they're
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-17 18:10]:
TODO means don't have the result of this test affect the
outcome yet.
Exactly. I think it’s just the fact that it’s called TODO which
leads people on a garden path. They want to assign meaning to it
that doesn’t exist, because they have a
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-18 12:30]:
Many of the test failures can be attributed to:
* non-portable path expectations
Btw, is there a chance of Path::Class becoming core?
It is *so* *much* better than File::Find, File::Basename,
File::Spec and the rest of the entourage it’s
On 23/09/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-17 18:10]:
TODO means don't have the result of this test affect the
outcome yet.
Exactly. I think it's just the fact that it's called TODO which
leads people on a garden path.
It's partly the name
* Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-23 19:35]:
At least then the user knows there's a problem _before_ he
insert misfortune caused by non-functioning module. Remember,
this thread is about how the toolchain is really for the user's
benefit. Hiding failures to avoid reports about known
On Saturday 23 September 2006 11:30, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-23 19:35]:
At least then the user knows there's a problem _before_ he
insert misfortune caused by non-functioning module. Remember,
this thread is about how the toolchain is really for the
On 23/09/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 23 September 2006 11:30, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-23 19:35]:
At least then the user knows there's a problem _before_ he
insert misfortune caused by non-functioning module. Remember,
this
Adrian Howard wrote:
Yeah - it's something I've noticed over the last year or so. I'm
talking to people less about you should write tests, and much more
about you should write /good/ tests.
What do people think are *good* tests?
My modules mostly have *comprehensive* tests, but that
On 9/19/06, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Howard wrote:
Yeah - it's something I've noticed over the last year or so. I'm
talking to people less about you should write tests, and much more
about you should write /good/ tests.
What do people think are *good* tests?
My
David Cantrell wrote:
clearly. So my attempt to make my tests good will mostly consist of
applying the same coding standards to the test suites as I do to the
rest of the code.
OK, Lazy Web, who's going to write Test::Test::Perl::Critic?
:-)
Any tips on what - other than
On Sep 19, 2006, at 7:00 AM, David Golden wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
clearly. So my attempt to make my tests good will mostly consist
of applying the same coding standards to the test suites as I do
to the rest of the code.
OK, Lazy Web, who's going to write Test::Test::Perl::Critic?
David Cantrell wrote:
What do people think are *good* tests?
Good tests catch bugs.
This might seem obvious and its probably not what you were asking for, but
you'd be surprised at how often its forgotten in worries about code coverage,
style issues, setup, teardown, portability, black box,
Al Tobey wrote:
Sysadmins everywhere feel this broken tests are a good thing
syndrome as real, almost physical, pain nearly every time they work
with CPAN these days. It's great that TDD is making the progress it
has, but I think some coders got religion and missed the point:
quality.
Maybe
On Monday 18 September 2006 03:26, David Golden wrote:
I think authors need to aim to have the quality of test code be the same
as the quality of module code. (Though I'll admit that I don't always
live up to that standard myself.)
At some point, this ought to be a major goal of Perl QA.
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---*** The primary purpose of the install chain is to install modules
***---
OK, I'm sold. I'll go fix my code.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI --
On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 16:36 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
---*** The primary purpose of the install chain is to install modules
***---
Not to test the module.
Is it too late to speak out against this? As a 'packager' of CPAN
modules for the consumption of a linux distro, we rely, even
Michael Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 16:36 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
---*** The primary purpose of the install chain is to install modules
***---
Not to test the module.
Is it too late to speak out against this? As a 'packager' of CPAN
I think the key word in Schwern's
Michael Cummings wrote:
But I cannot stress enough
Stress is bad for you. You really should try calming down, perhaps cut down on
caffeine consumption. Maybe take a short vacation. Reduce the amount of
quoting out of context in your life. ;P
As David pointed out, testing the module and
On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 16:53 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Michael Cummings wrote:
But I cannot stress enough
Stress is bad for you. You really should try calming down, perhaps cut down
on caffeine consumption. Maybe take a short vacation. Reduce the amount of
quoting out of context
---*** The primary purpose of the install chain is to install modules
***---
...
It has to work... because most folks want to use the code, not fix it.
Schwern,
Thank you for writing this rant. I've written flames on the same
subject a number of times over the last few years, but deleted
The tenor of the opinions in the passing TODO tests bother me a bit. It seems
folks have forgotten why the CPAN installation chain exists. Especially the
assertion that its perfectly ok for modules to start failing even though
there's nothing wrong with them (unless you raally stretch
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:36:50PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The tenor of the opinions in the passing TODO tests bother me a bit. It
seems folks have forgotten why the CPAN installation chain exists.
Especially the assertion that its perfectly ok for modules to start failing
even
24 matches
Mail list logo
