Abe Timmerman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I'm looking into running part of our test-suite in parallel.
> TAP::Harness understands the way we'd like the tests ordered:
>
> { seq => [
> { seq => [ glob 't/0*.t' ] },
> { par => [ glob 't/1*.t' ] },
> { par => [
On 20 Mar 2009, at 19:28, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Yeah, I think that's right. Maybe we need the option to have a rules
file that can express more complex rules?
Does that need to have some sort of glob syntax, or would it be
appropriate to simply do() a file and have it do its own globbing to
retu
# from Andy Armstrong
# on Friday 20 March 2009 12:17:
>> There's no way to do this currently without writing code, but it
>> seems like a prefectly reasonable thing to want to do. I _think_
>> the right answer is to extend the --rules option to prove, but I'm
>> not convinced. Thoughts?
>
>Yea
On 20 Mar 2009, at 18:44, Alex Vandiver wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 22:29 +0100, Abe Timmerman wrote:
App::Prove can only do a simple version of rules (that ends up
running the
tests all wrong).
On the other hand, prove has all the logic we need to get the job
done.
Is there a way, witho
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 22:29 +0100, Abe Timmerman wrote:
> App::Prove can only do a simple version of rules (that ends up running the
> tests all wrong).
>
> On the other hand, prove has all the logic we need to get the job done.
>
> Is there a way, without redoing all the work in App::Prove to ge
Hi all,
I'm looking into running part of our test-suite in parallel.
TAP::Harness understands the way we'd like the tests ordered:
{ seq => [
{ seq => [ glob 't/0*.t' ] },
{ par => [ glob 't/1*.t' ] },
{ par => [ glob 't/{2,3,4,5,6,7,8}*.t' ] },
