Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-19 Thread Michael G Schwern
tl;dr/Executive Summary --- Harvest the internal improvements from Test::Builder2 for Test::Builder creating a backwards compatible Test::Builder 1.5 which accomplishes the lion's share of the grant deliverables. Have a feature complete alpha release before the end of Nov

Test::Builder 1.5 first alpha

2011-11-17 Thread Michael G Schwern
Gentlemen, start your smokers! https://metacpan.org/release/MSCHWERN/Test-Simple-1.005000_001 Thanks very much to the contributors who stepped up: * James E Keenan * Jason Galea * Nóirín Plunkett * Aaron Crane * chromatic * Father Chrysostomos * Larry Leszczynski * Michael Ludwig * Mike Doherty *

Subtest design in Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-24 Thread Michael G Schwern
Subtests are the last major feature hurdle for Test::Builder 1.5. They're kind of a hacky mess in Test::Builder 1 which I don't want to bring forward. A subtest has to 1) create a separate state of the test 2) change the format of the output 3) communicate the result of the test b

Re: Subtest design in Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-25 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from Michael G Schwern on Monday 24 October 2011 22:12: >Plan A... >2) The old one is squirreled away in a stack. >3) The new handler is told how deeply it's nested. >...On the down side, every handler needs a delegator ... yucky. ... > >Plan B... when a subtest_start happens... > >1) An event h

Re: Subtest design in Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-25 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.10.25 12:29 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote: > I like the sound of plan B, except for the "stores itself in" combined > with "swap me out". Any specific doubts? > Can the event coordinator keep a stack? At the point where the parent > handler has to tell the coordinator "swap me out", you coul

Re: Subtest design in Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-25 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from Michael G Schwern # on Tuesday 25 October 2011 12:57: >On 2011.10.25 12:29 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote: >> I like the sound of plan B, except for the "stores itself in" >> combined with "swap me out". > >Any specific doubts? I'm only working from intuition and my understanding of what you desc

Re: Subtest design in Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-26 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.10.25 10:54 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote: > I'm only working from intuition and my understanding of what you > described as the problem. If you try to implement a few scenarios of > special handler functionality using each design approach, that might > help clarify the issues. All I really h

Re: Subtest design in Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-26 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from Michael G Schwern # on Wednesday 26 October 2011 09:51: >> Note that you should be able to allow e.g. "the new subtest object >> is just a copy of me" and other advanced usage without ceding all of >> the mechanics to the handler object. > >Ooh, good idea.  I think that's the clincher right

Re: Subtest design in Test::Builder 1.5

2011-10-26 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.10.26 12:55 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote: > To be specific, I picture the interface as one of: > > a) subtest_start() must return the subtest handler object > (might be a new object, or just $self) > > or: > b) subtest_start() must return the $invocant, $method, %args for > construc

Small pile of Test::Builder 1.5 refactoring tasks

2011-11-02 Thread Michael G Schwern
Designing the subtests made me realize a few things about the event system that would be better done a little differently. Mostly renaming things. It would help me immensely if people could do these refactorings so I can focus on the design. They should be straightforward, it's just time consumi

Next Test::Builder 1.5 milestone: fix Test modules

2012-08-02 Thread Michael G Schwern
Moving along the trail of getting Test::Builder 1.5 ready (and CPAN ready for Test::Builder 1.5), the next step is to fix the Test modules which are failing. While they fail, large chunks of CPAN cannot be tested. I've set up issues for the known failures. Some of them are probably very

Roll back the Test::Builder 1.5 formatting changes?

2013-04-09 Thread Michael G. Schwern
I'd like people's opinions on a possible downgrade of Test::Builder 1.5 in an attempt to make getting a stable release out easier. It has to do with whether we keep minor changes to the TAP formatting as the new default or replicate Test::Builder's current quirks. https://github.c

Re: Small pile of Test::Builder 1.5 refactoring tasks

2011-11-02 Thread James E Keenan
On 11/2/11 4:35 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: Here's all the current gardening tasks. https://github.com/schwern/test-more/issues?labels=Gardening%2CTest-Builder2&sort=created&direction=desc&state=open&page=1 I will start to look at these ... but would these be suitable for Google Code-In s

Re: Small pile of Test::Builder 1.5 refactoring tasks

2011-11-03 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.11.2 7:24 PM, James E Keenan wrote: > On 11/2/11 4:35 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: >> Here's all the current gardening tasks. >> https://github.com/schwern/test-more/issues?labels=Gardening%2CTest-Builder2&sort=created&direction=desc&state=open&page=1 > > I will start to look at these ...