On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:51, Fergal Daly wrote:
[snip]
NB: I haven't used xUnit style testing so I could be completely off
the mark
but some (not all) of these benefits seem to be available in T::M land.
Just so I'm clear - I'm /not/ saying any of this is impossible with
T::M and friends. That's obv
On 24 Jun 2004, at 19:59, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
[snip]
- You don't have much control (correct me if I'm wrong) about the order
of tests, or the relationship between tests, eg you can't say "if
this
test fails, skip these others". This is straightforward in
Test::More's simple procedural sty
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:35:38PM -0400, Potozniak, Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Has anyone encountered some really odd errors, namely status 500 errors when
> surfing to ASP.Net files only through means of WWW::Mechanize?
What is the error that is showing up in the log file on your ASP.Ne
On 25 Jun 2004, at 20:18, Andy Lester wrote:
Repetition is good. I feel very strongly that you should be checking
your constructor results in every single test, and checked against
literals, not variables.
I'm not complaining about repetitive tests, and I agree with what you
said about testing co
Has anyone encountered some really odd errors, namely status 500 errors when
surfing to ASP.Net files only through means of WWW::Mechanize?
Andrew Potozniak
Administrative Computing
Student Assistant
State Unive
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:18:49PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> Tests are all about quantity.
I always thought that tests were about malice:
"I bet the programmer didn't think of this..."
"What happens if I just do this..."
"Mmm, I wonder if it covers this corner case?"
"Eat pathological data and
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Fergal Daly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * I never have to type repetitive tests like
> >
> > isa_ok Foo->new(), 'Foo'
> >
> > again because it's handled by a base class that all my test classes
> > inherit from.
Repetition is good. I feel very s
On 24 Jun 2004, at 21:10, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:59:30PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that
- You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests.
Those that need different things aren't testing the same
Ok, now that I understand what library you're using ...
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:41:15PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > I was responding to your suggestion to put all the tests in one method
> > if they are just parametrized by dat
--- Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now I'm confused too. None of the Test::Unit examples I've seen use
> "is", they use some form of assert.
You were looking at Test::Class code, not Test::Unit code.
Cheers,
Ovid
=
Silence is Evilhttp://users.easystreet.com/ovid/phi
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:41:15PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > I was responding to your suggestion to put all the tests in one method
> > if they are just parametrized by data. How do you suggest writing the
> > equivalent of
> >
On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:10, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
[snip]
I thought the "isolation" principle that people were talking about is
that before every test, a "setup" method is called, and after every
test
a "teardown" is called, automatically by the test harness. This
seems to require one method == one
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:05:09PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
>
> On 24 Jun 2004, at 20:19, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >>Where xUnit wins for me are in the normal places where OO is useful
> >>(abstraction, reuse, revealing intenti
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I thought the "isolation" principle that people were talking about is
> that before every test, a "setup" method is called, and after every test
> a "teardown" is called, automatically by the test harness. This
> seems to require on
On 24 Jun 2004, at 21:41, Ovid wrote:
[snip]
I also like the thought of inheriting tests, but I know not everyone
is fond of this idea. There
was a moderately interesting discussion about this on Perlmonks:
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=294571
[snip]
Yeah, I meant to contribute to tha
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:35:26AM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:13:08PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > But (I thought) the idea was that every test needs the same setup. If
> > they're all in one method, they won't get that.
>
> How's that?
I thought the "isolation"
hi paul :)
I recently discovered an issue with nested subroutines while using
Devel::Cover with Parse::Yapp. the basic issue is that some subroutines are
not discovered by Devel::Cover and thus no metrics are generated.
there are two files in the tarball. Foo.pm is a minimal test case showing
t
On 24 Jun 2004, at 20:19, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
Where xUnit wins for me are in the normal places where OO is useful
(abstraction, reuse, revealing intention, etc.).
Since you've thought about this, and obviously don't believe "it's OO
18 matches
Mail list logo
