Well thanks for the big thread, and useful comments.
I took the conclusion that the syntax testing, in isolation, was
generally viewed to be a bad idea and that it might actually make
more sense to *remove* any occurances of use ..constants from
existing plugins, so we could test
Matt Sergeant escribió:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jose Luis Martinez wrote:
BTW: any comment on how to elaborate a testing framework. Comments
from the QP-gurus would be helpful.
For some in house code here that's similar to Qpsmtpd we basically have
a data driven test system. You specify in a
Robert Spier wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:47:39 -0400, Brian Szymanski wrote:
Then let's make that diff instead - remove all the use
Qpsmtpd::Constants in plugins, and add your test harness?
I agree. Make your tester run the same code in Qpsmtpd.pm (or
I may have an extreme view on this, but... Systems that re-use the same
module in lots of other different modules tend to annoy me, because the
author hasn't thought out what needs to be imported when - instead
they've just fired a shotgun blast of use statements around until things
stopped
Robert Spier wrote:
I may have an extreme view on this, but... Systems that re-use the same
module in lots of other different modules tend to annoy me, because the
author hasn't thought out what needs to be imported when - instead
they've just fired a shotgun blast of use statements around
The inspiration for the file based plugins were Apache::Registry in
mod_perl -- hide as much of the nitty gritty as possible and allow the
user to just write the code that actually does stuff for them. On
that track then I think it's reasonable to add whatever boiler plate
code is
Matt Sergeant escribió:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:47:39 -0400, Brian Szymanski wrote:
Then let's make that diff instead - remove all the use
Qpsmtpd::Constants in plugins, and add your test harness?
I agree. Make your tester run the same code in Qpsmtpd.pm (or is it now
in Plugin.pm, I don't
On 2008-07-28 22:54:20 -0700, Robert Spier wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:47:39 -0400, Brian Szymanski wrote:
Then let's make that diff instead - remove all the use
Qpsmtpd::Constants in plugins, and add your test harness?
I agree. Make your tester run the same
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jose Luis Martinez wrote:
BTW: any comment on how to elaborate a testing framework. Comments from the
QP-gurus would be helpful.
For some in house code here that's similar to Qpsmtpd we basically have a
data driven test system. You specify in a config file what plugins
On Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:44:08 -0400, John Peacock wrote:
The plugins were not originally intended to be complete Perl scripts but
rather are stubs which are loaded by Qpsmptd::Plugins (which includes
Qpsmtpd::Constants already). It doesn't actually hurt to apply the
patch, but it is
Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:47:39 -0400, Brian Szymanski wrote:
Then let's make that diff instead - remove all the use
Qpsmtpd::Constants in plugins, and add your test harness?
I agree. Make your tester run the same code in Qpsmtpd.pm (or is it now
in Plugin.pm, I
11 matches
Mail list logo
