On Wednesday 02 July 2003 00:25, Adrian Howard wrote:
> On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:07 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
> The footer doesn't indicates that the correct number of tests ran
> (that's the plan's job), it just shows that a test script completed
> without error.
I think that would be usef
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:07 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 20:15, Adrian Howard wrote:
Add an explicit "test script finished" footer?
But how does the footer-adder know that the correct number of tests
ran. You
would need to declare a plan to run x additional extensions
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 20:15, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Add an explicit "test script finished" footer?
But how does the footer-adder know that the correct number of tests ran. You
would need to declare a plan to run x additional extensions at which point
you're doing sub-plans.
I suppose I'm th
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:13:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On Saturday 28 June 2003 02:51, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > When I merged Test::Simple with Test::More I left a Test-More tarball lying
> > around containing a Makefile.PL which simply died saying "download
> > Test-Simple instead".
>
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:13:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Is there a way to
> know if Makefile.PL is being run by CPAN.pm?
Not as far as I know, but Jos tells me that there should be some way in
the next version of CPANPLUS.
My person
On Saturday 28 June 2003 02:51, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> When I merged Test::Simple with Test::More I left a Test-More tarball lying
> around containing a Makefile.PL which simply died saying "download
> Test-Simple instead".
That's OK for a merge (or you could have an empty archive with a depen
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 08:39:39PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Test::NoWarnings sounds good to me. What is the correct etiquette for
> abandoning a namespace? Just delete the files with PAUSE or should I leave a
> pointer behind? Not too important with this module but I'm just curious,
When I me
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:09:26PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> I just thought of a big problem with plan extensions. If the script silently
> eat's itself just before you extend the plan, then you don't know that
> anything went wrong.
It would have to also exit normally. That is rare.
--
Is
Hiya,
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 07:09 pm, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:49, Adrian Howard wrote:
The thread from the start of May about having optional / extendable
plans supported by Test::Harness would seem to be a good match for
this
feature.
http://archive.d
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:49, Adrian Howard wrote:
> The thread from the start of May about having optional / extendable
> plans supported by Test::Harness would seem to be a good match for this
> feature.
>
> http://archive.develooper.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01883.html (Plan is
> YAG
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 07:53 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
Consider the following.
use Test::More;
use Test::Warn::None;
plan tests => 42;
To make this work I'd have to overhaul the internal Test::Builder
planning
sy
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:04:25PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
>> All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
>> roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
>> really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, righ
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:36:52PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
>> BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
>> (via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
>> testing for warnings presence/absence on certai
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:04:25PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
> roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
> really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
No, its definately a test feature. Mu
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:36:52PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
> (via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
> testing for warnings presence/absence on certain conditions.
There's Test::Warn, but I d
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > Consider the following.
> >
> > use Test::More;
> > use Test::Warn::None;
> > plan tests => 42;
> >
> > To make this work I'd have to overhaul the internal Test::Builder planning
> > system to allow Test::Warn::None to s
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:37:36PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly happy with
> None,
Test::Warn::Auto doesn't say anything about its main purpose: to ensure
that you have no warnings. Instead it documents an implementation detail,
tha
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 20:31, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> If you want to do it to a whole test suite, PERL5OPT=-MTest::Warn::None
comes
> to mind.
That's cool, I never saw that before.
It's also a pretty convincing argument for an "I'm going to add an extra test"
method in Test::Builder,
F
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:55, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I like Test::Warn::None or some variation on it. Or even Test::NoWarnings.
> Doesn't have to sit in the Test::Warn namespace.
Test::NoWarnings sounds good to me. What is the correct etiquette for
abandoning a namespace? Just delete the fi
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 20:04, Andy Lester wrote:
> All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
> roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
> really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
Possibly...
...except how does Test::Harness know
All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:56, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I don't quite understsand what "spanning perl interpreters" means.
Neither did I until just now. I think it's the fact that forks will cause the
END to run multiple times. It would be nice if Test::Builder gave a method to
give us access
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:36, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> +1 for ::Auto.
>
> BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
> (via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
> testing for warnings presence/absence on certain conditions.
> (Avoiding to span
Fergal Daly wrote:
>
> Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly happy with
> None,
+1 for ::Auto.
BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
(via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
testing for warnings presence/absence o
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:04, Tels wrote:
> > It IS obsolete. I DOES call it from an END block ;-)
>
> Uh - *hides in a corner for the rest of the day*
It happens to the best of us.
I've updated the docs to make this more clear.
Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 24-Jun-03 Fergal Daly carved into stone:
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:37, Tels wrote:
>> Actually, I can see that Test::Warn::None could make the no_warnings()
>> line
>> obsolete by calling this automatically in an END block. So:
>
> It IS obsolete. I
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:22, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > >> use Test::More::None;
>
> Typo?
Yeso.
> >
> > Can't nowarings() call Test::More::plan_add(1) or something like this?
> >
>
> Consider the following.
>
> use Test::More;
> use Test::Warn::None;
> plan tests => 42;
>
>
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:37, Tels wrote:
> Actually, I can see that Test::Warn::None could make the no_warnings() line
> obsolete by calling this automatically in an END block. So:
It IS obsolete. I DOES call it from an END block ;-)
F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 24-Jun-03 Michael G Schwern carved into stone:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Tels wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
>> > Good idea. Too bad about the plan calculation hackery necesssary. :(
>>
>>
>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Tels wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> >> I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
> >> independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
> >> script didn't emit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 23-Jun-03 Michael G Schwern carved into stone:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
>> I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
>> independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that yo
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
> independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
> script didn't emit any warnings. Just add
>
> use Test::More::None;
>
> to the top
Hi,
I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
script didn't emit any warnings. Just add
use Test::More::None;
to the top your test script, update your plan (if you've got one) and that's
it
33 matches
Mail list logo
