Hi,
Stevan Little <stevan <at> iinteractive.com> writes:
> - Should we remove all the todo_* functions and just use the
> t/force_todo file?
the idea was that t/force_todo lists the tests which are only
TODOed because of release preparation, and the todo_* functions
mark tests which are real TODO tests.
If we take this way, then we should certainly rename t/force_todo
to t/todo_tests (or sth. similar).
> - Should we do away with the t/force_todo file and introduce a
> force_todo() function?
>
> The idea is to move from the more centralized t/force_todo file to a
> more decentralized force_todo() function which would accept a list of
> test numbers which would be forced-TODO on a per-file basis.
The idea was that t/force_todo can be deleted/cleared after a release,
so all tests which were only force_todoed were instantly unTODOed.
But if we remove all todo_* functions and go the todo_tests way, then
we really should use a sub (todo_tests(...), for example), as you
propose.
> force_todo(1, 5, 10 .. 15, 25);
That'd be cool :)
Of course, we could make Test.pm parse sth. like the following, too.
t/my_test.t 1 5 10..15 25
--Ingo
--
Linux, the choice of a GNU | Life would be so much easier if we could
generation on a dual AMD | just look at the source code.
Athlon! | -- Dave Olson
