Another vote here for Working Effectively with Legacy Code
On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
... (where's my refactoring browser!?)
http://e-p-i-c.sourceforge.net/
Eclipse plugin for Perl. Provides extract subroutine using
Devel::Refactor.
I believe Jeff Thalhammer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. To test the code, you need to change it.
2. Before changing the code, you should test it.
How do we resolve these two opposites ? We change as little as
possible.
*snip*
A lot of my more recent thoughts about testing and development have
come from a wonderful
--- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've thought things like that in the past, innocent refactorings, and
broke shit. Especially since they have to be done by hand (where's
my refactoring browser!?)
At absolute minimum, with a big ball of mud, you can do dumb high
level exact
chromatic wrote:
the Star Trek: Generations
fallacy. You steal a spaceship, which flies through space, to fly through
space to a planet, flying through space, where a temporal anomaly, which also
flies through space, deflected by a supernova, which you flew through space
in your spaceship
::Builder feature request
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think code under test that has if I'm under test statements is
intrinsically weak. You want to test what it does, not what it does
when under test. Changing the code for testing means your not really
testing it , your testing a variation
chromatic wrote:
(I know; it's not exactly what you were asking. I just wanted to get that in
a public mailing list so I could call that the Star Trek: Generations
fallacy. You steal a spaceship, which flies through space, to fly through
space to a planet, flying through space, where a
On Thursday 11 January 2007 15:30, Ovid wrote:
Quite often people will write code which tests to see if
$ENV{HARNESS_ACTIVE} is true. For example, this allows them to not
email support from their code while testing. This variable is set in
Test::Harness. However, this causes a problem when
--- Nadim Khemir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 15:30, Ovid wrote:
Quite often people will write code which tests to see if
$ENV{HARNESS_ACTIVE} is true. For example, this allows them to not
email support from their code while testing. This variable is set
in
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 09:04:54AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
--- Nadim Khemir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 15:30, Ovid wrote:
Quite often people will write code which tests to see if
$ENV{HARNESS_ACTIVE} is true. For example, this allows them to not
email support
--- Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I can see uses for knowing whether or not you are being run as
part
of an installation, or in some automated environment, and I can
imagine
someone would have a use for HARNESS_ACTIVE, though I can't see it
myself, but I'm not sure this is it.
On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:04, Ovid wrote:
Just one, Shouldn't the mailer object be mocked and the mail
sending checked?
absolutely, but how do you know to mock it or really send the email
unless you know that you're being run by tests?
Aren't you mixin contexts here? The code to be
Nadim Khemir writes:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:04, Ovid wrote:
Just one, Shouldn't the mailer object be mocked and the mail
sending checked?
absolutely, but how do you know to mock it or really send the email
unless you know that you're being run by tests?
Aren't you mixin
On Thursday 11 January 2007 06:30, Ovid wrote:
Quite often people will write code which tests to see if
$ENV{HARNESS_ACTIVE} is true. For example, this allows them to not
email support from their code while testing. This variable is set in
Test::Harness. However, this causes a problem when
means your not really testing it ,
your testing a variation of it.
Leif
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 12 January 2007 11:04 AM
To: perl-qa@perl.org
Subject: Re: Test::Builder feature request
Nadim Khemir writes:
On Thursday 11 January
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think code under test that has if I'm under test statements is
intrinsically weak. You want to test what it does, not what it
does when under test. Changing the code for testing means your not
really testing it , your testing a variation of it.
I completely
On 2/9/06, Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This works:
yes, excellent randy. thanks for that. it still seems a little hackish but
that's ok - hackish works for me if it means I can do what I want and nobody
else needs to do extra work :)
I made some tweaks to your format and added a
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On 2/9/06, Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This works:
yes, excellent randy. thanks for that. it still seems a little
hackish but
that's ok - hackish works for me if it means I can do what I want and
nobody
else needs to do extra work :)
I made some
One of the problems is going to be numbering, surely?
but it shouldn't need to be, right? I mean, TAP is merely a protocol and
there shouldn't be a requirement that the bookkeeping happen in the same
process as the TAP emitting process I wouldn't think. in fact, if someone
were implementing
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests = 1;
my $Test = Test::More-builder;
my $counter = $Test-current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test-current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate perl interpreter. for example, I want
to do
On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:41, Geoffrey Young wrote:
so, I guess my question is whether the plan-is linkage can be
broken in
Test::Builder/Test::Harness/wherever and still keep the bookkeeping in
tact so that the library behaves the same way for the bulk case. or
maybe at least provide some
so, thoughts or ideas? am I making any sense?
Yes, you are.
*whew*
:)
I think that the subprocess can load Test::More and
friends like this:
use Test::More no_plan = 1;
Test::More-builder-no_header(1);
cool, thanks.
That will set No_Plan, Have_Plan, and No_Header to true,
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate perl interpreter.
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate
On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:41, Geoffrey Young wrote:
with your suggestion I'm almost there:
1..1
ok 1 - this was a passing test
# No tests run!
What parts do you want left out?
Best,
David
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests = 1;
my $Test = Test::More-builder;
my $counter = $Test-current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test-current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
__END__
---response.pl---
use Test::More no_plan = 1;
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests = 1;
my $Test = Test::More-builder;
my $counter = $Test-current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test-current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has to be set to the number of tests run in the
On 2/8/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests = 1;
my $Test = Test::More-builder;
my $counter = $Test-current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test-current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has to
29 matches
Mail list logo
