chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 23:15, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The simplest solution, and one which unblocks Test::Harness 3.0 because
TAP::Parser breaks compatibility in its current state, is to remove the
syncing feature.
If only there were a way, perhaps in Test::Builder, to
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 00:00, Michael G Schwern wrote:
chromatic wrote:
If only there were a way, perhaps in Test::Builder, to supply
diag()nostic information to the TAP output stream.
Diagnostics (comments) in the TAP stream should not be displayed. diag()
does not go to the TAP
chromatic writes:
There ought to be a way to capture diagnostic information in the TAP
stream because it's useful for diagnosing problems.
Does that help with the case where it's an 'ordinary' Perl-generated
warning (Use of uninitialized value and the like), which runtests is
also swallowing
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:37, Smylers wrote:
chromatic writes:
There ought to be a way to capture diagnostic information in the TAP
stream because it's useful for diagnosing problems.
Does that help with the case where it's an 'ordinary' Perl-generated
warning (Use of uninitialized
Michael G Schwern wrote:
First thing is breaks, and probably most important: No warnings.
Any test suite that blithely ignores warnings is BROKEN.
There are two types of warning. First, those which you deliberately
spit out, like use of foo() is deprecated, please use bar() instead.
Your
--- David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
use Test::NoWarnings;
I like to use Fewer::Annoying::Dependencies.
Same here, but Test::NoWarnings is hardly annoying. More than once
that module has revealed bugs that we've managed to miss in
development. In fact, it's so
Andy Armstrong wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007, at 07:29, chromatic wrote:
The problem is that there's no way to tell that that information
sent to
Test::Builder-diag() is diagnostic information for the tests
because once it
goes out on STDERR, it could be anything.
So we seem to have two
On 14 Mar 2007, at 15:45, Michael G Schwern wrote:
But we can go ahead with TH 3 now using Ovid's plan without
worrying about that.
OK. Unless anyone jumps in first I'll implement it when I get some
time from Friday onwards.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
There ought to be a way to capture diagnostic information in the TAP stream
because it's useful for diagnosing problems.
I feel like I'm talking to myself when I say this (since I've said this
before) but I'll say it again just, well, because :)
the implicit idea that STDERR generally goes
Ovid wrote:
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
use Test::NoWarnings;
I like to use Fewer::Annoying::Dependencies.
Same here, but Test::NoWarnings is hardly annoying.
Sure, on its own. But then there's lots of other modules which, on
their own, aren't annoying.
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 09:41, Geoffrey Young wrote:
There ought to be a way to capture diagnostic information in the TAP
stream because it's useful for diagnosing problems.
so, to chromatic's point, I can't help but feel like solving the quoted
issue would go a long way toward reducing
David Cantrell wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
First thing is breaks, and probably most important: No warnings.
Any test suite that blithely ignores warnings is BROKEN.
There are two types of warning. First, those which you deliberately
spit out, like use of foo() is deprecated, please
On 14 Mar 2007, at 07:29, chromatic wrote:
The problem is that there's no way to tell that that information
sent to
Test::Builder-diag() is diagnostic information for the tests
because once it
goes out on STDERR, it could be anything.
So we seem to have two reasonably sensible options on
On 14 Mar 2007, at 19:24, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
A way to request verbose output without the merging.
I'm wondering whether merging should be a separate option. I feel
slightly uneasy about having the harness behave so differently as a
result of setting the verbose flag. Normally
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 18:27, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-14 18:50]:
I think my point eluded everyone. Let me be very clear.
Not me, but I’m not surprised that so many people missed it.
After all, you did try to make it in as condescendingly
convoluted
On Mar 15, 2007, at 12:38 AM, chromatic wrote:
I think diagnostics have to go into the TAP stream at some point.
I think expecting a harness to merge STDOUT and STDERR when it runs
a test
file is prone to errors.
I agree with both of these, and I do think it'll cause problems, but
if
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 23:15, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The simplest solution, and one which unblocks Test::Harness 3.0 because
TAP::Parser breaks compatibility in its current state, is to remove the
syncing feature.
If only there were a way, perhaps in Test::Builder, to supply diag()nostic
17 matches
Mail list logo
