Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> it does run (and fails) with 2.0.
The question is "why"? Why doesn't it get a 500 when it
encounters a bogus line in the .htaccess file? I haven't
verified it yet; what does the first request say with -v or
-d lwp?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> That test shouldn't even *run* for 2.0; it should get a 500
> and skip.
it does run (and fails) with 2.0. i just changed it to require apache
1.x for the moment, which i just realized isn't good enough. should
probably be something like:
my
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> if you don't need the config object, you could have Makefile.PL
> generate this stuff (like the etags stuff you checked in). and just add
> the top-level directory of the generated tree here:
> clean => { FILES => "@scripts @other_generated_stuff" },
>
> otherwise
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> In that case, would anyone object if I occasionally modify tests
> that currently frob .htaccess files so that they use static
> settings (such as separate directories or containers)
> in the t/htdocs/ tree?
if you don't need the config object
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Was 'foo' supposed to be a vhost on the current system, or
> > was it supposed to be able to be a remote system? The
> > latter is my goal (testing things like DAV on Win32 bites
> > the Harry Houdini..).
>
> the
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Was 'foo' supposed to be a vhost on the current system, or
> was it supposed to be able to be a remote system? The
> latter is my goal (testing things like DAV on Win32 bites
> the Harry Houdini..).
the latter.
as was mentioned earlier, some test write to the server root, perhaps we could
add a special directive so you could do something like this in your plan line:
plan tests => 5, have_module 'foo' && have_local_server_root
where 'have_local_server_root' could be named whatever we think appropriate a
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> > Not without some trickery: loads of the scripts rely on being able to
> > write directly to the server root.
>
> we should fix that. the original plan was for this to work:
> % t/TEST -run -port 8080 -servername foo
>
> and have the .t's hit http://foo:8080
Was 'fo
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Gary Benson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Can it be done?
>
> Not without some trickery: loads of the scripts rely on being able to
> write directly to the server root.
we should fix that. the original plan was for this to work:
% t/
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Can it be done?
Not without some trickery: loads of the scripts rely on being able to
write directly to the server root.
Gary
[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ GnuPG 85A8F78B ][ http://inauspicious.org/ ]
I want to automate some testing of Apache 2.0 on Win32, but I
want to use scripts I developed for Unixish systems. Is there
any way to tell t/TEST that it should look elsewhere than
localhost for the server? I don't mind installing the package
on the Windoze machine and getting things going with
11 matches
Mail list logo
