"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
>
> Is each example to be standalone? ie,
I'm thinking of this more as a testing tagset now:
=begin testing []
=end testing
=for testing []
where the optional indicates the file to append
the indicated paragraphs to.
This plays well with using =also (for|begin|en
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Barrie, you suggested it, so its your babe now! You have the option
> to sketch out a new RFC and start working on this or punt the
> responsibility to somebody else.
I'll take "sketch out a new RFC" for $200, Michael. I'll also tie it
in with the =for test stuff.
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Perl will have to compile all the test routines all the time. This
> both slows startup and eats memory. This pretty much kills the
> proposal. :(
Yup. Brain fart withdrawn.
> I don't see how the "sub TEST" thing improves except to keep POD pure
> documentation.
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Just a few changes:
>
> . Don't rely on both a preamble and a postamble (postambles are
> optional)
> . all consecutive verbatim paragraphs after a "=end example_preamble"
> would be a single set of code to test.
> . Better names than "example_preamble" and "ex
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> GREAT IDEA! Its yours! Organize a perl-qa FAQ or get someone to do
> it for you.
Would a perlqa.pod man page be a more effective tool?
- Barrie
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:27:55PM -0400, Bryan C.Warnock wrote:
> Is each example to be standalone? ie,
Yes. Unless/Until we come up with a method of naming test examples
such that successive tests with the same name are chained.
Just MHO,
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:25:43PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> 3) =begin preamble/=end preamble/paragraph to test is compatible, but its
> kind of annoying to write (or even explain) and will run into problems
> with multi-paragraph examples. However, it is compatible and should
>
> I have no idea what coverage tools are available for C. Someone want
> to compile a list? I have also never really done much coverage
> analysis. Would someone with time and experience step forward and
> take responsiblity for it?
There don't seem to be many free/open tools. I was able to
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:07:09PM -0700, Tony Payne wrote:
> I think Schwern's proposal of a patch for every test, applied appropriately
> will do a good job of making sure the Perl test suite has close to 100%
> functional coverage of the core. However, we should also consider doing
> code cove
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:12:36AM -0400, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> I'm glad you're looking out for Kwalitee, and I have observation about
> the RFC's you've offered. None of them have milestones or completion
> states.
You're right, I've totally forgotten about time! Perhaps its because
I
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 09:46:05PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> > > P.S. Why is this perl-qa? Shouldn't it be perl6-qa?
> >
> > I believe Schwern has already answered that ...
>
> I think we have here our first FAQ :-).
GREAT IDEA! Its yours! Organize a perl-qa FAQ or get someone to do
it
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:08:43PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Regression tests should be embedded in the code and documentation near what
> > it is they're testing.
>
> s/embedded/embeddable/ and I'm there. I don't think you can necessarily
> embed tests right
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:51:46PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I do not believe that it would be a good idea to mix perl5 and perl6 on
> any of the lists. If something is useful to perl5 send it on to p5p.
It would be artificial to split the two. Most of QA will be
applicable to all of Perl.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> I think the =also tag approach does that pretty well, but I'm not
> hearing anyone else say yay/nay on it.
>
> Whether the examples get converted to tests could be flagged in
> POD at the top of the file, or by using slightly different syntaxs:
>
>
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:23:16PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> You may want to think about psychology and wording, though. If
> someone writes a code patch but does not supply tests/docs, and he or
> she is told that the patch is rejected because of that deficiency, he
> or she might not su
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 04:50:34PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> While perl6 has not yet defined what an "RFC" really is, what it
> should say or what format it should be in, we can't wait. So I'm
> going forward with a fistful of things I'm calling RFCs. They are
Just for the record, I lov
We have an interesting knife edge to walk here. We'd like to
automagically test example code with a minimum of work on the POD
author's part, and yet avoid false negatives. We also have to keep
POD simple to write. On top of that, we'd like to keep it backwards
compatible.
So we've got a few a
I think Schwern's proposal of a patch for every test, applied appropriately
will do a good job of making sure the Perl test suite has close to 100%
functional coverage of the core. However, we should also consider doing
code coverage analysis. This can help us to create test cases that
accurate
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:21:05PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> One way I can see to work around your dilema would be kludgy:
>
> =begin example_preamble
>
>#!perl -w
>use LWP::Simple
>use Test ;
>
> =end example_preamble
>
>$page = get("http://www.perl.org");
>
> =begin e
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 05:07:24PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
>
> I think the =also tag approach does that pretty well, but I'm not
> hearing anyone else say yay/nay on it.
>
> Whether the examples get converted to tests could be flagged in
> POD at the top of the file, or by using slightly
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> tchrist makes a
> good point, we can't make it anyting but easy to write POD.
I think the =also tag approach does that pretty well, but I'm not
hearing anyone else say yay/nay on it.
Whether the examples get converted to tests could be flagged in
POD at the top of t
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:53:23PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> How do you know that sample code in the documentation is correct?
> That it compiled? Or that it generated the correct result?
>
> The documentor will need to state the expected result, so that
> both the reader and testing scripts
Mike,
I'm glad you're looking out for Kwalitee, and I have observation about
the RFC's you've offered. None of them have milestones or completion
states.
I think that QC in Perl is very important, and has historically lacked
the commitment that you're bringing to it, but I'd like to sug
[[CCed back to perl-qa]]
Marek Rouchal DAT CAD HW Tel 25849 wrote:
>
> I don't understand the benefit of =also in this context. Could you please
> elaborate some more on this?
The goal is to be able to extract snippets of example code from the POD
and test them. The =also solution is kind of a
24 matches
Mail list logo
