Tim,
On May 15, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
I think our mileage does vary as I can't think of any overloaded
stringification in the DBI or these tests.
I'm sorry, i read stringification, not "overloaded" stringification.
You are right,.. we just do regular ole' perl stringification on the
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 04:22:05PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This stringification problem may be a culprit, as we stringify 2
> objects to test against in the subroutine which is run in each thread.
> But that stringification was there before in the old test (1.42), so I
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 01:17:27PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> >Not having a threaded version of perl handy right now (I am home, it
> >is at work), I cannot test this right now. The changes I had made were
> >only to change a few tests to 'cmp_ok' and add test names, which
> >should not affect
Andy,
This stringification problem may be a culprit, as we stringify 2
objects to test against in the subroutine which is run in each thread.
But that stringification was there before in the old test (1.42), so I
think maybe this is a different problem.
Steve
On May 15, 2004, at 2:17 PM, Andy L
Not having a threaded version of perl handy right now (I am home, it
is at work), I cannot test this right now. The changes I had made were
only to change a few tests to 'cmp_ok' and add test names, which
should not affect things. However in the last update (prior to this
one), I did change the
Tim,
Not having a threaded version of perl handy right now (I am home, it is
at work), I cannot test this right now. The changes I had made were
only to change a few tests to 'cmp_ok' and add test names, which should
not affect things. However in the last update (prior to this one), I
did c
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:47:39AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:16:00PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> > Tim, Andy,
>
> Could you take a look at this problem with threaded perl:
>
> t/10examp.ok 165/252Invalid value for shared scalar at
> /usr/local/perl583-i/l
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:16:00PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> Tim, Andy,
Could you take a look at this problem with threaded perl:
t/10examp.ok 165/252Invalid value for shared scalar at
/usr/local/perl583-i/lib/5.8.3/Test/Builder.pm line 319.
WHOA! Somehow you got a different num
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:23:40PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 15:19, stevan little wrote:
>
> > If 5.6.1 is the official minimum, then maybe this brings back up the -w
> > vs. warnings issue? Since Ovid pointed out that 5.6 was the minimum for
> > the warnings pragma, and 5.
The fact is that not all the tests are consistent, so it is less change
for change-sake and more for consistencies-sake.
Tim has decided now anyway
On May 11, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
It's sufficient. And no, don't remove it and don't change to "use
warnings:";
Tim.
So I will ma
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 15:19, stevan little wrote:
> If 5.6.1 is the official minimum, then maybe this brings back up the -w
> vs. warnings issue? Since Ovid pointed out that 5.6 was the minimum for
> the warnings pragma, and 5.6.1 is your "official" minimum, it seems
> maybe the choice is back
If 5.6.1 is the official minimum, then maybe this brings back up the -w
vs. warnings issue? Since Ovid pointed out that 5.6 was the minimum for
the warnings pragma, and 5.6.1 is your "official" minimum, it seems
maybe the choice is back on the table.
Tim, its your baby, what do you say?
Steve
O
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:13:19PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> On May 11, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> >>One concern just popped into my head... I'd like to not have to
> >>depend on very recent versions of Test::More. Can you look into
> >>that and make recommendations about what ve
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I've committed my t/41 and t/42 changes to subversion. They are not the
> same as what I submitted to the list.
>
> > Is there any reason to now use skip_all? (Remember, you're wearing
> > the official "Test Expert" hat now so you nee
On May 11, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
I've committed my t/41 and t/42 changes to subversion. They are not
the
same as what I submitted to the list.
Yes, that slightly confused me, which is why I asked. I assumed there
was a reason why you had chosen to not use skip_all, so I thought I
I've committed my t/41 and t/42 changes to subversion. They are not the
same as what I submitted to the list.
> Is there any reason to now use skip_all? (Remember, you're wearing
> the official "Test Expert" hat now so you need to weigh up the
> issues and make recommendations :)
We can't use sk
16 matches
Mail list logo