Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-12 Thread Tim Bunce
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 06:15:58PM -0400, stevan little wrote: > Tim, > > I see a few issues crop up with -T in the she-bang line (I made the > change to my working copy to see), but when I do 'prove -T' I see the > same issues crop up, plus then the zvpp* stuff fails (it basically > fails to l

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread Tim Bunce
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:44:39PM -0400, stevan little wrote: > A question for the class: > > Is specifying the -w flag in the she-bang line sufficient? Or should we > also include $^W = 1 at the top of every file as well? It's sufficient. And no, don't remove it and don't change to "use warnin

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread stevan little
Tim, I see a few issues crop up with -T in the she-bang line (I made the change to my working copy to see), but when I do 'prove -T' I see the same issues crop up, plus then the zvpp* stuff fails (it basically fails to load the regular test file). I think this makes sense, the zppp* files shoul

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread Tim Bunce
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:48:47PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so. > > I'd like to. I'd like every module to think about taint-safety. DBI > es

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread stevan little
A question for the class: Is specifying the -w flag in the she-bang line sufficient? Or should we also include $^W = 1 at the top of every file as well? Steve On May 11, 2004, at 5:39 PM, Ovid wrote: --- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I revers

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread Ovid
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I reverse my proposal and > say that we should *not* use the warnings pragma and instead use the -w > flag. I always find it easier to roll back unwritten code :) Cheers, Ovid = Silence is Evil

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread stevan little
As I said, my perl experience only goes back to 5.6 so I have never known a world without the warnings pragma :) If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I reverse my proposal and say that we should *not* use the warnings pragma and instead use the -w flag. Steve On May 11, 2004, at 5:26 PM

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread Ovid
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would also like to propose that we remove all -w flags, and convert > them to use the warnings pragma. Does that mean you don't want to support versions of Perl prior to 5.6? I would think that should be up to Tim. Cheers, Ovid = Silence is

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread stevan little
Andy, Tim, I think Andy is right, we should use the -T flag. I would also like to propose that we remove all -w flags, and convert them to use the warnings pragma. I assume this will be backwards compatible enough, but my perl experience only goes back to 5.6 so I may be missing something. Do y

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread Andy Lester
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so. I'd like to. I'd like every module to think about taint-safety. DBI especially, since we're dealing with tainted data if it comes from a DB,

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread Tim Bunce
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little wrote: > Tim, Andy, > > Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so. > > Also, i noticed in the most recently checked in versions, that the > 'skip_all' code was not included from the patches Andy sent for > 41prof

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-11 Thread stevan little
Tim, Andy, Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so. Also, i noticed in the most recently checked in versions, that the 'skip_all' code was not included from the patches Andy sent for 41prof_dump.t and 42prof_data.t. Are we not using 'skip_all'? If so, I will remove

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-10 Thread Andy Lester
OK, one more for tonight. It's the last of the Test.pm-using .t files. Index: t/41prof_dump.t === --- t/41prof_dump.t (revision 335) +++ t/41prof_dump.t (working copy) @@ -1,36 +1,27 @@ -#!perl -w +#!perl -Tw use strict;

Re: hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-10 Thread Andy Lester
Why should you guys have all the fun? Here's my patch. * Adds a -T flag ('cause really, shouldn't all of DBI be able to run under taint mode?) * Uses Test::More instead of Test. * Escapes out properly with skip_all. * Adds an isa_ok() for all object creation statements. * Added some comments here

hoplite report for DBI : Part 2

2004-05-10 Thread stevan little
Tim, I made another update today, here are the details of the changes: 07kids.t - changed it to a skip_all for DBI::PurePerl - Increased the number of tests from 11 to 20 - Added tests to exercise the $dbh's Kids/ActiveKids attributes more by creati