James Keenan via RT schrieb:
Hey, gang! Can anyone comment on the status of this ticket?
I agree that if a test file is 2400 lines long, there's a prima facie
case for splitting it into smaller components.
However, based on my experience and ptc's in cage-cleaning, I'd
recommend opening up
I have created RT tickets for 25 test files each of which is = 1000
lines in length. The tickets ask you to examine the file to determine
whether it can reasonably be subdivided. If so, subdivide; if not, take
and resolve the ticket.
2907 t/op/string.t
2649 t/pmc/nci.t
2485 t/op/calling.t
Hey, gang! Can anyone comment on the status of this ticket?
I agree that if a test file is 2400 lines long, there's a prima facie
case for splitting it into smaller components.
However, based on my experience and ptc's in cage-cleaning, I'd
recommend opening up individual RTs for test files
James,
However, based on my experience and ptc's in cage-cleaning, I'd
recommend opening up individual RTs for test files that would benefit
subdividing. That way, we can more easily identify which test files
have been refactored and which remain to be done.
Given the way we currently seem
jerry gay wrote on Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:17:07AM PDT:
...
perhaps it's not explicit enough in the description, but
Fsprintf_tests is copied directly from perl's repository. modifying
this file is not recommended, as future synchronizations from a newer
perl will likely overwrite previous
On Aug 19, 2007, at 7:15 PM, David Romano wrote:
The patch splits string.t (originally almost 3000 lines) into
different
files, as well as moves some of the tests for sprintf into
t/op/sprintf_tests.
Why is this a good thing, to be splitting up the files like this? I
can see sprintf
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:19:22 -0500
Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 19, 2007, at 7:15 PM, David Romano wrote:
The patch splits string.t (originally almost 3000 lines) into
different
files, as well as moves some of the tests for sprintf into
t/op/sprintf_tests.
Why is
