Schwern,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
On 2011.11.10 4:59 PM, Buddy Burden wrote:
Does that do anything? I didn't think prove respected the shebang
line. Anyway, I thought the -w to prove would be effectively doing
that all along.
Perl
Guys,
Okay, just to follow-up in case anyone cared what the resolution on
this one was, changing the loop full of ok()s to one giant pass() or
fail() per loop fixed _everything_. Plus it runs a lot faster now. I
know I've seen test suites that do thousands and thousands of tests,
but they must
I'd like a smoker setup which can do two things:
1) Run smokes for all the Test:: modules.
2) Compare the results between two different installed versions of Test::More.
This will allow me to smoke Test::Builder 1.5 against CPAN, see what it's
broken and try to fix it.
I've never used the CPAN
This was suggested previously in 2008
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2008-06/msg00912.html
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:59:57PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Having a parallel and featureful testing system is very useful. I use it to
test Test::More (in the
On 11/15/11 8:40 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
I'm not seeing the point really. By this logic we can reduce all
frameworks on CPAN to some three letter acronym. To be honest I don't
think Test::Builder is used directly often enough to justify that.
I'm against abbreviation; it makes things harder
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
I've never used the CPAN smoker software before and I'm hoping somebody has a
recipe?
Regression testing is less well developed. As far as I know, people
have rolled their own.
I have some poorly documented tools I
I've taken over Pod-Perldoc and was surprised to find that it has
virtually no tests. When I started, it had several calls to pass() and
a checked that three modules loaded. You can help change that.
There are many interesting test challenges here. For instance,
Pod::Perldoc::ToMan, perhaps the
On Nov 15, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
Other than people writing test modules, who would find it useful?
FWIW, threads and threads::shared use test.pl in their test
suites. This seems to be historical and related to the fact
that older versions of Test::More didn't work will
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:34, Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org wrote:
This was suggested previously in 2008
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2008-06/msg00912.html
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:59:57PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Having a parallel and featureful testing
On 2011.11.15 1:01 AM, Buddy Burden wrote:
I did not know this ... just to be super-clear, obviously I know that
if I have script.pl and it starts with
#! /usr/bin/perl -w
and I make it executable and run it directly, I get perl -w. But
you're saying that even if I type:
perl
On 2011.11.15 1:14 AM, Buddy Burden wrote:
Okay, just to follow-up in case anyone cared what the resolution on
this one was, changing the loop full of ok()s to one giant pass() or
fail() per loop fixed _everything_. Plus it runs a lot faster now. I
know I've seen test suites that do
On 2011.11.15 6:40 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
I'm not seeing the point really. By this logic we can reduce all
frameworks on CPAN to some three letter acronym. To be honest I don't
think Test::Builder is used directly often enough to justify that.
Test::Builder was just one monolithic module.
I have an important task for getting Test::Builder 1.5 stable.
Test::Builder 1.5 outputs TAP version 13. There are minor formatting changes
including a TAP version header and changes to the ending commentary.
A lot of tests look at this output and so they break. Rather than make
everybody
13 matches
Mail list logo
