Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: On that note, what else can I work on? Apparently I'm a glutton for punishment. Not sure, there are all kind of things in the ToDo file, but they all mostly obscure. I think all kind of refactoring would be great. One thing I wanted to do

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them seperately to both lists, of send both sets to one list of the other? if they include modperl and a-t send them to the modperl dev list. if only a-t post them here. thanks :) --

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Stas Bekman wrote: Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them seperately to both lists, of send both sets to one list of the other? if they include modperl and a-t send them to the modperl dev list. if only a-t post them here. thanks :) Another opinion question amungst

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: OK, not that I've got a clean nmake/nmake test, I'm back on this. I'm going to just start with t/modperl and go from there. Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them seperately to both lists, of send both sets to one list of the other? -=Chris

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: OK, not that I've got a clean nmake/nmake test, I'm back on this. I'm going to just start with t/modperl and go from there. Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them seperately to both lists, of send both sets to one

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: Stas Bekman wrote: Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them seperately to both lists, of send both sets to one list of the other? if they include modperl and a-t send them to the modperl dev list. if only a-t post them here. thanks :)

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: OK, not that I've got a clean nmake/nmake test, I'm back on this. I'm going to just start with t/modperl and go from there. Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them seperately to both lists, of send both sets to one

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: OK, not that I've got a clean nmake/nmake test, I'm back on this. I'm going to just start with t/modperl and go from there. Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them seperately to both

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Stas Bekman wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: OK, not that I've got a clean nmake/nmake test, I'm back on this. I'm going to just start with t/modperl and go from there. Since these patches will span A-T and modperl, should I send them

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: Stas Bekman wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: OK, not that I've got a clean nmake/nmake test, I'm back on this. I'm going to just start with t/modperl and go from there. Since these patches will span A-T and

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Understood. What led me to contimplating those thoughts was the fact that some tests use hostport, and config, and a custom path, but just don't set A::TR::module. If it weren't for that, those test could be slimmed as well. That's when they use the default port. But that doesn't sound right,

[PATCH] Apache::TestRequest::module2url

Here's the patch for Apache::TestRequest::module2url(). A set of patches to use it within the modperl tests is on it's way to the dev list. -=Chris Index: lib/Apache/TestRequest.pm === --- lib/Apache/TestRequest.pm (revision

Re: [PATCH] Apache::TestRequest::module2url

Stas Bekman wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: Here's the patch for Apache::TestRequest::module2url(). A set of patches to use it within the modperl tests is on it's way to the dev list. Thanks Chris, committed with a few tweaks. Next it'd be nice to add a pod entries for this and module2path

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Christopher H. Laco wrote: Understood. What led me to contimplating those thoughts was the fact that some tests use hostport, and config, and a custom path, but just don't set A::TR::module. If it weren't for that, those test could be slimmed as well. That's when they use the default port. But

Re: [PATCH] Test TestRequest pod

Stas Bekman wrote: modperl/t/hooks/trans.t - does module2path, config, then hostport. No module, but does custom urls towards the end. You mean t/hooks/trans.t? sure it does: Apache::TestRequest::module($module); or are you talking about a different test? ANd so it does. On that note, I'm going

Re: apxs calls on Win32

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Stas Bekman wrote: Randy Kobes wrote: If apxs is installed on Win32, it is usually specified as a .bat file. In querying apxs in apxs() of Apache::TestConfig, however, Win32 needs both the path to cmd.exe (for running a .bat command) and to Perl (in order to run

Re: apxs calls on Win32

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Stas Bekman wrote: Randy Kobes wrote: [ ... ] == Index: lib/Apache/TestConfig.pm === --- lib/Apache/TestConfig.pm(revision 110064) +++

Re: apxs calls on Win32

Also is there some File::Spec thingy that defines record separator in paths? I looked through there - there's not one specifically defined. There are special cases for various platforms: Mac = uses ',', but needs $ENV{Commands}, not $ENV{PATH} OS2 = uses ';', but also translates '\' to '/'