Re: Anybody wanna adopt Test::Class, Test::Exception Test::Block

I would be happy to take on Test::Exception. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Adrian Howard adri...@quietstars.com wrote: Hi Karen, On 13 Jul 2014, at 16:56, Karen Etheridge p...@froods.org wrote: You can also reach a wider audience by granting comaint or first-come privileges to one

Re: Anybody wanna adopt Test::Class, Test::Exception Test::Block

Adrian, Looks like even with the handoff permission set you need to make the handoff. Would you please alter the permissions and assign them to me? Ribasushi will also be a co-maintainer, I can add that myself once I am listed as the owner. Thanks! -Chad On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Chad

Test-Simple changes to go stable Saturday Jan 10'th

Related blog post: http://blogs.perl.org/users/chad_exodist_granum/2015/01/test-simple-release-plan.html TL;DR: Unless someone finds something significant I will release the new internals for Test-Simple/More/Builder next Saturday. If this is a problem for you, or if you know of something broken

Re: Test-Simple schedule change, Was: Test-Simple changes to go stable Saturday Jan 10'th

http://blogs.perl.org/users/chad_exodist_granum/2015/01/test-simple-updated-release-plan.html Now planning to go stable 2015-03-19, to sync up a bit more with the blead-release cycle. On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Chad Granum exodi...@gmail.com wrote: Related blog post: http

Re: Communicating between processes in test suite run

Can you start the server and get the port in the parent process, then fork and run the tests from the child? On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Cosimo Streppone cos...@opera.com wrote: On 23. april 2015 19:02, Tim Bunce wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 05:59:34PM +0200, Cosimo Streppone wrote:

Re: Communicating between processes in test suite run

oops ignore my last message, obviously forking the server is a dumb idea. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Chad Granum exodi...@gmail.com wrote: Can you start the server and get the port in the parent process, then fork and run the tests from the child? On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:21 AM

Re: new Stream Test::Simple question, XS requirement

I have no objections to having OPTIONAL XS available to speed things up for people who want it. However I will not accept making XS a requirement. I thought that since Scalar::Util::weaken was in core that there would be no issues using it in a core module. If using weaken makes Test-Simple

Re: new Stream Test::Simple question, XS requirement

have no problem. If they are bothered by scalar::util being used then we need to look at options. Does anyone have a strong opinion about Test-Simple needing scalar::util? On Apr 25, 2015 8:57 PM, bulk88 bul...@hotmail.com wrote: Chad Granum wrote: I have no objections to having OPTIONAL XS

Re: new Stream Test::Simple question, XS requirement

it. The fallback I have in mind also maintains the exact same interface, so it would be seamless to users, and does not deviate from the current context usage in any way. On Apr 25, 2015 9:15 PM, Chad Granum exodi...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure it is entirely my decision. If it is entirely my

Re: new Stream Test::Simple question, XS requirement

For now I am going to add the minimum necessary Scalar::Util version to the requirements list in Makefile.PL. This should meet the toolchain requirement of supporting back to 5.8.1 as Scalar::Util is on cpan for install in perl versions where it is too old. It also sounds like this is not a

(PQAH) Doc to read before Test::More discussion

https://github.com/Test-More/test-more/blob/stream/coexist/lib/Test/Stream/Design.pod I was talking to a couple people about this doc. There was a suggestion that I post It here and ask that anyone interested in the Test::More discussion tomorrow give it a quick look. This is not a document

Test-Simple punchlist status

Original note: https://gist.github.com/dagolden/2134567dc1125d20d375 1. A single Test-Simple branch with proposed code and a corresponding Test-Simple dev release to CPAN (exodist) Branch: https://github.com/Test-More/test-more/tree/stream/master Release:

Re: Test::More, what we hope to achieve doc.

Thanks for the feedback! A few people have asked for a transition document like what you are asking for, I have yet to write it, but it is on my list. The main thing for a darkpan maintainer to do is this: Run all your tests against the latest dev release on cpan (

Re: Test::More, what we hope to achieve doc.

https://github.com/Test-More/test-more/blob/stream/replace/lib/Test/Stream/Transition.pod Initial, and very sparse transition document. If there are specific things you want added please feel free to comment on it, or make requests :-) On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Chad Granum exodi

Re: Test::More, what we hope to achieve doc.

Just cut a new release that fixes that unit test. On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 April 2015 at 20:21, Martin J. Evans martin.ev...@easysoft.com wrote: I'll post this on github if you prefer. Martin And done on your behalf:

Test::More, what we hope to achieve doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RCqf5uOQx0-8kE_pGHqKSQr7zsJDXkblyNJoVR2mF1A/edit?usp=sharing Several people have asked for this, so I wrote it up. -Chad

Re: Writing our own modules in Test2

: > > On Jun 24, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is the intent that when people will create them as > Test2::Tools::Whatever? Sort of like Perl::Critic::Policy::* is done? Or > are we still staying as Test::Whatever? > > > What abo

Re: Writing our own modules in Test2

Right now the Test2::API docs are probably all that is done. But my Test2 manual grant covers the document you request as one of the 2 primary goals. I have plans for it, and will be getting to it just as soon as I settle back in from YAPC. On Jun 23, 2016 7:52 PM, "Andy Lester"

Re: Last call for review of Test-Builder using Test2 (Formerly Test-Stream)

will not be taken as a seal of approval. That said, indefinite silence will also not be considered a blocker past a point, but no time limits have been set either way. -Chad On Feb 6, 2016 2:13 AM, "Kent Fredric" <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 February 2016 at 08:14,

Last call for review of Test-Builder using Test2 (Formerly Test-Stream)

On October 29th, 2015, I released Test-Stream as stable. I did this because I felt it was ready, and because I was no longer receiving any feedback from perl-qa asking me to change things. Since that release, the feedback picked up substantially. It seems that declaring something done is the best

Re: Test2/Test::Builder release plan

> > > I think 1 is a good idea, but I have some reservations about the 2 (and > thus 4). Is it really advantageous to switch over everyone to Test2 today? > > I think Test2 has major benefits for some people (it makes new things > possible), but it also has major disadvantages for others (it

Test2/Test::Builder release plan

RJBS and I have spoken, and feel it is time to set a release date for Test2/Test-Builder. We have agreed that doing it at the QAH in Rugby is a good time. The plan is to release Test2 and the new Test::Builder as stable either at the end of the first day, or the start of the second day (so the

Re: Last call for review of Test-Builder using Test2 (Formerly Test-Stream)

*bump* This thread has produced very little chatter. Bumping the thread again after talking to rjbs. Next week he and I are going to talk about next steps. (Please do not read that as we will talk next week and release, that is not intended, implied, or expected). -Chad

Re: Test2/Test::Builder release plan

I am also happy to help out with information if you get hung up on anything. On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Randy Stauner wrote: > Thanks. Any help is appreciated. > Here are some relevant urls: > > https://github.com/rwstauner/test-aggregate/issues/2 >

Re: Test2::Tools::Compare is vs. like

Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Andy Lester <a...@petdance.com> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Specifically "This will ignore hash keys or array indexes that you do not > actually specify in your $expect structure." d

Re: Test2::Tools::Compare is vs. like

I thought I had documented the differences pretty well. If you look here https://metacpan.org/pod/Test2::Tools::Compare#COMPARISON-TOOLS and read both the 'is()' and 'like()' sections it makes it clear. is: > his is the strict checker. The strict checker requires a perfect match > between $got

Need feedback on an Importer interface design

This question pertains to a new feature I have been working on for Importer: https://metacpan.org/release/EXODIST/Importer-0.021-TRIAL The trial release above has some known bugs, I have fixed a few, but have not put them on github/cpan yet, be aware of that before trying it out. I have been

Re: Test::Buildder v. Test2 subtests

ok, thanks for trying that, I will look into it when I have time and if nothing else at least explain why it behaves like it does. If it is a bug I will fix it. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Ricardo Signes <perl...@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: > * Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com>

Re: Test::Buildder v. Test2 subtests

I will have to look into this when I have more time. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > I've hit a nasty (to me) difference between Test2::API::run_subtest and > Test::Builder::subtest. Shout out to Matthew Horsfall for helping > localize the >

Re: Test::Buildder v. Test2 subtests

when you use Test2::Tools::Subtest::subtest_streamed() which is the actual equivalent to Test::More::subtest(). -Chad On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will have to look into this when I have more time. > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:06 AM,

Re: test/subtest flow control with exceptions

I don't have much comment on the functionality you want, seems reasonable enough... I do have implementation commentary however: * You should not be obtaining a context inside your subtest (specifically line 18 https://github.com/rjbs/Test-Abortable/blob/master/lib/Test/Abortable.pm#L18).