>From the docs:
BAIL_OUT
BAIL_OUT($reason);
Indicates to the harness that things are going so badly all testing
should terminate. This includes the running any additional test
scripts.
This is typically used when testing cannot continue such as a crit-
ical module fail
# from Ovid
# on Thursday 04 January 2007 01:34 pm:
>However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
>is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit.
> This seems to violate the principle that tests should be able to run
> in any order without dependencies.
On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Ovid
# on Thursday 04 January 2007 01:34 pm:
However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit.
This seems to violate the principle that tests should be
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-04T16:34:31]
> I guess the reason I have never used BAIL_OUT is because if I have a
> bunch of tests failing, they fail quickly and I don't have to wait for
> them :) I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but I noticed it this
> evening and thought I would toss
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:34 -0800, Ovid wrote:
> I guess the reason I have never used BAIL_OUT is because if I have a
> bunch of tests failing, they fail quickly and I don't have to wait for
> them :) I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but I noticed it this
> evening and thought I would toss i
# from Andy Lester
# on Thursday 04 January 2007 06:25 pm:
>On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> Is it possible to shuffle all but the first tests?
>
>No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe! My
poi
On Jan 4, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe!
It is as far as Test::Harness goes. Test::Harness doesn't have any
sort of idea of what connects tests together.
On 1/4/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
>
> Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe!
It is as far as Test::Harness goes. Test::Harness doesn't have
On 1/4/07, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/4/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>
> >> No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
> >
> > Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe!
>
> It
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[...]
[1] I've never had a need for random tests myself. The only reason I
break mine apart is to isolate testing various sub-systems, but I almost
always end up having some dependencies put into an early "00" file. I
also tend to a have a final "99" cleanup file. Whi
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> [1] I've never had a need for random tests myself. The only reason I
> break mine apart is to isolate testing various sub-systems, but I almost
> always end up having some dependencies put into an early "00" file. I
> also tend to a have a final "99" cleanup file. While
Ovid wrote:
> However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
> is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit. This
> seems to violate the principle that tests should be able to run in any
> order without dependencies.
It doesn't violate the principle sinc
Michael G Shwern wrote:
> Such a bother.
> ...
> You can even get clever and pack the setup/teardown calls into
> loading the module so you have even less code per script.
>
> Now each test runs independently and cleans itself up.
True, but at the expense of having to run the startup and cleanup
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Michael G Shwern wrote:
>> Such a bother.
>> ...
>> You can even get clever and pack the setup/teardown calls into
>> loading the module so you have even less code per script.
>>
>> Now each test runs independently and cleans itself up.
>
> True, but at the expense
* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-05 06:25]:
> # from Greg Sabino Mullane
> # on Thursday 04 January 2007 07:39 pm:
>
> > [1] I've never had a need for random tests myself. The only
> > reason I break mine apart is to isolate testing various
> > sub-systems, but I almost always end up ha
What I did instead is moved all the setup and teardown stuff into simple
functions, plopped them into modules in t/lib/ and had each test do:
use lib 't/lib';
use MakeMaker::Test;
setup_foo();
END { teardown_foo(); }
You can even get clever and pack the setup/te
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Ovid wrote:
However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit. This
seems to violate the principle that tests should be able to run in any
order without dependencies.
It doesn't viola
Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Lately I find myself cheating a bit on the test naming as well, by just
> calling the testing package t::lib::Test.
>
> That saves me one entire line :)
Relying on . being in @INC makes my feet itch.
Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Personally, I've always wanted a per-file bail_out as well, that can
> just abort the current test script, rather than the entire testing process.
>
> Schwern? :)
die.
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > Personally, I've always wanted a per-file bail_out as well, that
> can
> > just abort the current test script, rather than the entire testing
> process.
> >
> > Schwern? :)
>
> die.
Definitely the way to go. Up until I
Ovid did write:
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Personally, I've always wanted a per-file bail_out as well, that
can
just abort the current test script, rather than the entire testing
process.
Schwern? :)
die.
Definitely the way to go. Up until I st
> "Michael" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>> Lately I find myself cheating a bit on the test naming as well, by just
>> calling the testing package t::lib::Test.
>>
>> That saves me one entire line :)
Michael> Relying on . being in @INC makes m
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> "Michael" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Michael> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>>> Lately I find myself cheating a bit on the test naming as well, by just
>>> calling the testing package t::lib::Test.
>>>
>>> That saves me one entire line :)
>
> Micha
23 matches
Mail list logo
