(insert off-topic grumblings about that "Munging Reply-To Considered Harmful" and how I can't reply in one way to most lists anymore)
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:44:25AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: > > shell. (i.e. "prove" will run the tests in whatever order it pleases. > > "prove *" will run them in asciibetical order) Is that true? > > prove runs in whatever order it gets them. Which is asciibetical if I name the tests, or readdir() (a.k.a. whatever order) if I don't, so I guess the answer to my question was "no, I don't have the means fo controlling the order of the tests without passing the list through the shell". Bummer. Inclusion of a "sort" into the default behavior of prove would be a trivial patch...is anyone else intrested in having me submit one? I think it'd be nice to have prove mimic the behavior of Test::Harness here. > > Test::Builder docs, in case I was going to have to roll my own > > prove-like tool, and didn't see an obvious call there either. > > Test::Manifest is the way to get them in a certain order. Ah, thanks. Is there interest in having prove pay attention to Test::Manifest? Am I barking up the wrong tree by using prove for all of these tests? Or am I just approaching this weirdly? Or am I in a minority by using the tests for my applications as opposed to just my modules? Also, I take it there isn't away to abort as soon as one test fails? > > start of this email) or I have to copy the create and delete code into > > each tests, making maintenance harder. Is there a common way to > > Or make a mini library of the common code. But is there a common way to package that common code? I feel weird making a module that runs tests (breaks some sort of mental barrier against side-effects, I guess.) Is that how most of you package reused tests inside other tests? Modules? Thanks again. -- SwiftOne / Brett Sanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- End forwarded message ----- -- SwiftOne / Brett Sanger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
