On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:48:18PM -0500, barries wrote:
> Might also be nice to have a member like assert_valid() that could do
> runtime self-checks, perhaps, and SelfTest could stub it out as sub
> assert_valid() {} if need be. Stray thought that, though I've found
> self-testing objects at ru
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:41:27PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Surely the todo stuff should always run the test and complain if it
> succeeds. That's why there's a distinction between 'todo' and 'skip'.
Yes, that's the way it will work.
I think there's some confusion with todo() because I keep
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:08:01AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:38:43PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > <...neat expansion on do_all_tests() concept snipped...>
> >
> > > Well, it's a thought anyway.
> >
> > Seems pretty cool, but
barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:38:43PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> <...neat expansion on do_all_tests() concept snipped...>
>
> > Well, it's a thought anyway.
>
> Seems pretty cool, but I'm trying to perceive the advantage over a pure
> sequential/functional.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:38:43PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> I like this, but I'm not sure it really goes far enough.
I'm leaning against the do_all_tests() concept as an over-reaction to
the current state of the art, where you gotta count all those tests
yourself. More below, but what I'd
barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:05:47PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:38:22PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > > What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
> >
> > >
> > > This would make for very succinct ea
barries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
>
>my $tname ; ## ok(), skip(), todo() can get the test name from here
>my $is_todo ; ## ok() could look at this and adjust it's output
>
>sub do_all_tests {
> plan test
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:18:14PM -0500, barries wrote:
>do_all_tests(
> get_data_set => sub {$data_set = get_data_set() ;
> ok( $data_set ) },
>data_set_type => sub {ok( ref $data_set, "ARRAY" ) },
>data_set_size
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:16:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:56:46PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > It's no more difficult to learn except for having to deal with closures.
>
> Closures are not an easy thing to learn. Trust me, I've been trying
> for the past few mo
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:56:46PM -0500, barries wrote:
> It's no more difficult to learn except for having to deal with closures.
Closures are not an easy thing to learn. Trust me, I've been trying
for the past few months.
> Indeed, parts are simpler: both the current skip() and the proposed
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:05:47PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:38:22PM -0500, barries wrote:
> > What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
>
> >
> > This would make for very succinct easy to maintain test suites, if your
> > test suit
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:38:22PM -0500, barries wrote:
> What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
>
> This would make for very succinct easy to maintain test suites, if your
> test suite is simple enough:
>
>use Test qw( do_tests ) ;
>
>do_all_tests(
>
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, barries wrote:
> What do folks think of adding something like the following to Test.pm:
>
>my $tname ; ## ok(), skip(), todo() can get the test name from here
>my $is_todo ; ## ok() could look at this and adjust it's output
>
>sub do_all_tests {
> plan tests
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:37:12AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why have a static count? Rocco (I think) made the point that
> sometimes tests will just mysteriously never run! And if those tests
> came at the end of the run (or the test program aborted but exited
> normally for some reason
14 matches
Mail list logo
