Michael G Schwern wrote:
Disabling tests for subjective reasons (they take "too long", they don't
test critical functionality, etc...) is a slippery slope.
I've seen this approach used successfully in a commercial setting. The
key is to make sure that the long tests do get run by someone.
If u
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Disabling tests for subjective reasons (they take "too long", they don't
> test critical functionality, etc...) is a slippery slope. For that reason
> I'd agree with Curtis and say that everything is always run by default
> and users can then elect what to turn off. PER
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:23:19PM -0500, Potozniak, Andrew wrote:
> Is anyone going to develop this, or is all of this just
> wishfull/theorhetical thinking?
Boy, that sounds like a volunteer if I ever heard one!
Anyhow, it looks like Test::LongString is what you want. Now say thank you
to Ra
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:30:19AM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
> > Also, I would recommend something like PERL_SKIP_LONG_TESTS. By
> > default, all tests should be run to prevent the user accidentally
> > forget to run some tests.
>
> If some tests take hours to run, running them by default will
Ovid wrote:
> --- Kate L Pugh wrote:
> > This was discussed on this list back in June. I'm wanting to
> > implement it now and am wondering if Andrew's suggestion (below) has
> > been taken up by anyone. Is PERL_TEST_LONG what people here
> > generally
> > expect to be the right environment varia
--- Kate L Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was discussed on this list back in June. I'm wanting to
> implement it now and am wondering if Andrew's suggestion (below) has
> been taken up by anyone. Is PERL_TEST_LONG what people here
> generally
> expect to be the right environment variable
This was discussed on this list back in June. I'm wanting to
implement it now and am wondering if Andrew's suggestion (below) has
been taken up by anyone. Is PERL_TEST_LONG what people here generally
expect to be the right environment variable to set to enable
long-running tests?
(I know I could
Potozniak, Andrew wrote:
>
> Is anyone going to develop this, or is all of this just
> wishfull/theorhetical thinking? If someone will develop this are we going
> to add it to Test::More or create a module wrapped around Test::More with
> the added functionality?
What is "this" feature you're re
Is anyone going to develop this, or is all of this just
wishfull/theorhetical thinking? If someone will develop this are we going
to add it to Test::More or create a module wrapped around Test::More with
the added functionality?
Toodles,
~~Andrew
(Chrom sorry about the repeatforgot to use t
