On 22 Sep 2006, at 16:51, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 17:43, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The hack will only work for Test::Builder based tests. I said
this last month when it came up. You could write a hack for
Test.pm too, but not everyone uses Test.pm either. You're
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
print 1..1\n;
print not ok 1\n;
print STDERR # Your shit is broke.\n;
How will TAPx::Parser deal with that?
You know, you could skip this entire response and read my last couple of
paragraphs. That will sum it up.
Hmm, let's see:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Ovid wrote:
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will now break your solution.
use Test;
plan tests = 1;
ok 23, 42;
PHEAR MY MAD HAX0R SKILLZ!
:P
Hmm, interesting. My parser handled that just fine.
Yes, that is interesting. How did it
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-22 09:25]:
However, because of a design limitation in TAP and how
Test::Simple was implemented, we get one tiny *VISUAL* change.
We don't get different behavior in tests. We get one
difference in behavior in their presentation. We see if they
succeed or
* Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-22 10:50]:
$ perl examples/tprove ~/tmp/fail.t /dev/null
# Test 1 got: 23 (/Users/schwern/tmp/fail.t at line 6)
# Expected: 42
# /Users/schwern/tmp/fail.t line 6 is: ok 23, 42;
$
Diagnostic output leaks out to STDERR, just like with
On Sep 21, 2006, at 17:43, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The hack will only work for Test::Builder based tests. I said this
last month when it came up. You could write a hack for Test.pm
too, but not everyone uses Test.pm either. You're going to
continually be writing hacks for different
On Friday 22 September 2006 08:51, David E. Wheeler wrote:
I think that if Ovid hacked Test.pm, then he'd have a 99.99%
solution. Good enough, no?
The authors of affected distributions could also switch to the
Test::Builder-based Test.pm compatibility module, if I could remember its
name.
(I should have put Solved in quotes)
There appears to be a huge amount of disagreement at
http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=574085 regarding how to approach synchronizing
STDERR and STDOUT. While many offer useful suggestions, the suggestions tend
to be rather complicated, might require non-core
From: Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately, I'll have to alter the above to handle versions of
Test-Simple prior to 0.60 and that sucks, but it also *seems*
to work flawlessly.
I lied. I examined the code and again and my version appears to work for all
versions of Test::Builder since it
Ovid wrote:
Now I have guaranteed cross-platform behavior, STDERR and STDOUT are
guaranteed to be in
synch, this doesn't cause any problems for Test::Harness, I don't need to
fork Test::Builder
and I override one method which has not changed since May 2005.
Unfortunately, I'll have to
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will now break your solution.
use Test;
plan tests = 1;
ok 23, 42;
PHEAR MY MAD HAX0R SKILLZ!
:P
Hmm, interesting. My parser handled that just fine.
:P
The point isn't that the output comes before or after the test result. The
Ovid wrote:
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will now break your solution.
use Test;
plan tests = 1;
ok 23, 42;
PHEAR MY MAD HAX0R SKILLZ!
:P
Hmm, interesting. My parser handled that just fine.
Yes, that is interesting. How did it capture the diagnostics going
12 matches
Mail list logo
