On Tue Jul 29 11:01:12 2008, particle wrote:
>
> the failing test:
> t/steps/auto_ctags-01........................ok 1/31
> # Failed test 'Got expected result'
> # at t/steps/auto_ctags-01.t line 65.
> t/steps/auto_ctags-01........................NOK 17/31# got:
> 'yes'
> # expected: 'no'
> # Looks like you failed 1 test of 31.
> t/steps/auto_ctags-01........................dubious
> Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
> DIED. FAILED test 17
> Failed 1/31 tests, 96.77% okay
>
> the source looks like:
> is($step->result(), q{no}, "Got expected result");
>
> this test assumes i don't have ctags installed, but i do. of course,
> configure knows better than any tester, so it's better to test that
> the 'result' method returns one of the allowed values, and doesn't
> assume one or the other. something like:
> like($step->result(), qr/(yes|no)/, "Got allowed value from
> 'result' method");
>
I will look into this.
>
> it seems that only files in t/steps/ have been refactored, and that
> t/configure/ has been left alone. is that correct, and if so, can it
> be similarly refactored?
Yes, but not right away. The technique I used here was an extension of
a technique I developed in the aborted 'tcif' branch in December. It
was applicable with only slight variations across all the configuration
step classes -- which is not surprising, because the config step classes
have a uniform interface.
The t/configure/*.t tests are quite different. They test the modules
under lib/Parrot/Configure*. Some are OO, some are functional; some are
heavy with C; others are pure Perl; etc.
While I will look at these, I have quite a few other tickets
outstanding. For example, I'm still awaiting some feedback from you and
Coke on http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53976. I'd like
to work on (and get some help with) those tickets first.
Thank you very much.
kid51
