On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:54:31AM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 07:21:47PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > Net::Ping
> >
> > Maybe hard to test anything meaningful portably.
>
> localhost is always an option, no? If nothing else we can make sure
> an object can be set up and torn down. Net::Ping has broken badly in
> the past.
I believe that the hive mind of p5p found that "localhost" certainly wasn't
always an option (in that we couldn't guarantee a hostname lookup to work
on that name (Win32?) and I wouldn't be surprised that 127.0.0.1 doesn't
work everywhere.
*However* that is not an excuse not to make a test that attempts to lookup
localhost, and if that fails go "1..0 skipping", else charge ahead and test
what it can. [I think. Someone's going to suggest why this is stupid]
> > Err, nothing much would work in bleadperl if PerlIO didn't since
> > it's the "stdio" layer...
But subtleties in the implementation aren't tested.
EG Nothing in the core realised that a new bug had been introduced in the past
3 weeks:
open FOO, "<:foo", "foo" or die "Failed"
should fail if the layer foo fails to push (during the open).
Currently the open doesn't return failure if the push failed.
Nick I-S is aware of this bug.
> Great, shall we remove the t/base tests then? ;)
No. BTW the first test that a negative floating point number correctly
converts from a PV to an NV is one of storable's, which is near the end of
lib/*.t :-(
We do now have a test that 1 + 1 == 2.
> PerlIO claims it can do things, for example, the :crlf in the
> SYNOPSIS. That's a starting point to test against.
I agree. I'm not quite sure how to write such a test, else I'd have a go.
Nicholas Clark
