Just a thought:
use Tests qw/
Exception
Differences
/;
Have it import those modules and check for sub conflicts. By default, it would
also provide the Test::More tests but it should also normalize sub behavior:
can_ok $proto, $method, $description;
isa_ok $instance, $class
gt;
> Just doing this:
>
> use Tests;
>
> Would import the Test::More equivalents.
>
> Thoughts?
I like everything except overriding the names. I think that would add to the
confusion, especially more than a screen length away from the use line.
How about different names?
-- c
On 7/15/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a thought:
use Tests qw/
Exception
Differences
/;
Have it import those modules and check for sub conflicts.
This doesn't really buy you anything over:
use Test::Exception;
use Test::Differences;
That already warn
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern
On 7/15/06, Ovid wrote:
> > Just a thought:
> >
> > use Tests qw/
> > Exception
> > Differences
> > /;
> >
> > Have it import those modules and check for sub conflicts.
On 7/17/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many people would prefer that $description always be the last thing you type and
always be something you can provide.
IMO if I were to write a replacement for Test::More id put the
description argument first, and therby make it mandatory.
And then yo
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Test names shouldnt be optional.
I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have to come up with a
description for each and every test.
> Finding a particular test in a file by its number can be quite
> difficult, especially in test files wher
On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Test names shouldnt be optional.
I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have to come up with a
description for each and every test.
I dont think its that cumbersome at all. Even
On 17/07/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> > Test names shouldnt be optional.
>
> I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have to come up with a
> description for each and e
On 7/17/06, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 17/07/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> >
> > > Test names shouldnt be optional.
> >
> > I disagree. I would find it cu
On 17/07/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/07/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/17/06, Torsten Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > >
> > > > Test names sh
On Monday 17 July 2006 05:19, demerphq wrote:
> The fact that it does the same thing every time for a given set of
> input doesnt mean that it does the RIGHT thing. And i dont see how its
> possible to automatically do the right thing every time. Therefore if
> you need a custom wrapper you need t
- Original Message
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday 17 July 2006 05:19, demerphq wrote:
>
> > The fact that it does the same thing every time for a given set of
> > input doesnt mean that it does the RIGHT thing. And i dont see how its
> > possible to automatically do the
On 17/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 17 July 2006 11:37, Ovid wrote:
> For example, what could be done in TAP::Harness to improve the reporting on
> line numbers? That alone would be a nice benefit for folks.
I agree, but I disclaim the idea that there's a nice, general,
On Monday 17 July 2006 11:37, Ovid wrote:
> For example, what could be done in TAP::Harness to improve the reporting on
> line numbers? That alone would be a nice benefit for folks.
I agree, but I disclaim the idea that there's a nice, general, working
heuristic.
The best I've come up with che
* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 15:45]:
> The standard way to do this is to put
>
> local $Test::Builder::Level = $Test::Builder::Level + 1;
>
> at the top of every function in your library that does not
> actually call ->ok()
use Attribute::Handlers;
sub UNIVERSAL::TestHe
y, 17 July 2006 7:48 PM
To: perl-qa@perl.org
Subject: Re: use Tests; # ?
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Test names shouldnt be optional.
I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have to come up with a description
for each and every test.
> Finding a particular t
On 7/17/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if the test passes, there's no need to know where exactly it's
> located. If it fails, the diagnostics contain the line number:
>
> not ok 6
> # Failed test in t/xxx.t at line 26.
>
> I've never seen incorrect line numbers.
I have. L
On 7/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know we've moved on, but I'm in a completely different time zone, so please
understand...
I, like demerphq, also think that coming up with a name for each and every test
is a good idea.
It shouldn't be hard to think of a description f
18 matches
Mail list logo
