Abe Timmerman sent the following bits through the ether:
> Did I misunderstand?
My point is that the CPAN Testers reports for fails have the output of
make test, eg:
http://nntp.x.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/96865
... but passes don't:
http://nntp.x.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/96886
T
Op een zonnige zomerdag (Sunday 03 August 2003 10:42), schreef Leon Brocard:
> Leon Brocard sent the following bits through the ether:
> > Secondly, who do I need to convince to add the "make test" results for
> > PASSes too? ;-)
>
> So, does anyone actually have an opinion on this?
If you are ta
Leon Brocard wrote:
> Leon Brocard sent the following bits through the ether:
>
> > Secondly, who do I need to convince to add the "make test" results for
> > PASSes too? ;-)
>
> So, does anyone actually have an opinion on this?
*Puts up hand*. I agree with you. Seems useful and trivial to impleme
Leon Brocard sent the following bits through the ether:
> Secondly, who do I need to convince to add the "make test" results for
> PASSes too? ;-)
So, does anyone actually have an opinion on this?
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
scribot...
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 05:02:58PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >Or even more trivially, take Test::AtRuntime and swap
> >out Test::Builder::ok() with something that dies on failure.
> [snip]
>
> I was thinking about the ability to have an assertion block - so you
> could do (something like):
>
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:43:26AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> This does mean, though, that it won't play nicely with versions of Perl < 5.6.0. Is
> that trade
> off acceptable?
I'll throw in the fallback "if DEBUG" style
TEST {
my $sky = look('up');
is( $sky, 'blue' );
} if
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:22:43AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Could these instead be subroutine attributes? I can see a lot of
> advantages there.
I know very little about subroutine attributes, so you're going to have
to investigate that one.
Keep in mind, though, that we want the *whole call t
