Re: [cgiapp] testing the new CAD::PSGI version

Hi Mark Another attempt. More below. On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 11:26 +1000, Ron Savage wrote: Hi Mark Doesn't work for me. I assume it's due to the exact combination of modules used and their parentage. (1) 1 line change to Local::Application::Controller: package

Re: [cgiapp] testing the new CAD::PSGI version

Hi Mark Doesn't work for me. I assume it's due to the exact combination of modules used and their parentage. (1) 1 line change to Local::Application::Controller: package Local::Application::Controller; #Patch#use parent 'CGI::Application'; use parent 'CGI::Application::Dispatch::PSGI'; use

Re: [cgiapp] testing the new CAD::PSGI version

CGI::Application::Dispatch::PSGI gives any CGI script using CGI::App access to PSGI's amazing capabilities. It's what I use for every CGI script, nowadays. Ron, Could you test the Github version of CAD::PSGI if you haven't already? As part of re-implementing it better, it should be a little

Re: [cgiapp] testing 1, 2, 3...

Hi David On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 16:19 -0400, David Kaufman wrote: Is this thing on? I'm receiving. Got this and Colm's post, but nothing for some unknown time before that. But then, perhaps no-one posted... Sorry for the list downage. it needed a: chown mailman ~mailman Seems qmail

Re: [cgiapp] Testing harness for non-CGI::App code

Ron Savage wrote: Is Test::WWW::Mechanize the most appropriate harness for testing CGI (but not CGI::Application) code? I love T::W::M (used with Test::HTML::Content). But why limit yourself to just normal CGI and not CGI::Application code? IMO it's not only important to test the C::A code,

Re: [cgiapp] Testing harness for non-CGI::App code

Hi Michael On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 09:12 -0500, Michael Peters wrote: Ron Savage wrote: Is Test::WWW::Mechanize the most appropriate harness for testing CGI (but not CGI::Application) code? I love T::W::M (used with Test::HTML::Content). But why limit yourself to just normal CGI and not

Re: [cgiapp] Testing

I see this. On Dec 12, 2007 10:27 AM, Jesse Erlbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ping? Jesse Erlbaum The Erlbaum Group, LLC http://erlbaum.net/ 817 Broadway, 10th floor New York, NY 10003 212-684-6161 (office) 917-647-3059 (mobile) 212-684-6226 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [cgiapp] Testing

PONG! On 13/12/2007, Jesse Erlbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hehe.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cgiapp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Gwynn Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:34 AM To: CGI Application Subject: Re: [cgiapp] Testing 64

RE: [cgiapp] Testing

, 2007 11:34 AM To: CGI Application Subject: Re: [cgiapp] Testing 64 bytes from joelman (here): icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=16.9 ms 64 bytes from joelman (here): icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=16.9 ms 64 bytes from joelman (here): icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=16.9 ms 64 bytes from joelman (here): icmp_seq=0 ttl=53

Re: [cgiapp] Testing

Joel, Check out these examples of testing. This code was written from studying the testing done by the CGI::Application release tests. Then expanded to test for an application. It gives you a view of testing CGI::apps, supporting classes and the screens.

Re: [cgiapp] Testing

HTTP::Recorder looks quite cool. On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:06:48 -0500, William McKee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:21:33AM -0500, Joel Gwynn wrote: What do people use for automated testing of their CGI::Application apps? How about testing things like user account

Re: [cgiapp] Testing

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:21:33 -0500, Joel Gwynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do people use for automated testing of their CGI::Application apps? How about testing things like user account creation forms, use menus, and they myriad of options that can be selected, and things that go wrong?