Also I was thinking it would be nice to be able to run prove and
Devel::Cover together by possibly adding a -M to prove
prove -MDevel::Cover -Ilib -v t/*
I don't recall this -M/-m suggestion, but I like it.
Can someone please submit it to the CPAN queue?
Thanks,
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EM
Jeff,
On Nov 5, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Jeff Bisbee wrote:
I was just wondering if there was an easier way where make test whould
like in lib and not blib.
Well if you don't do the 'make test' step, you can just call the test
file individually and add 'lib/' to the @INC from the command line.
Like this
* Stevan Little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I tend to not re-make my modules before I test them (then again, they
> are always pure perl so I don't need to do it as much in a C based
> module). I have a small shell script (run_coverage.sh) which just
> removes the cover_db folder, then loops th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Bisbee) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> I have a handy script I keep in my ~/bin directory
called 'pmpath'
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> $module = shift;
> ($mod = $module) =~ s#::#/#g;
> die ("Need a module name\n") unless $mod;
> $mod .= '.pm';
> prove -MDevel::Cover -Ilib -v t/*
>
> I remember mentioning something to Andy, but at the time he didn't like
> it.
On a related note, I think an -M option to prove might be a useful
feature.
With my own test suite, I want to load and run a perl module
(TestConfig.pm) before each test scri
Jeff,
On Nov 5, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Jeff Bisbee wrote:
I'm also curious how other folks run coverage, update modules
and rerun coverage.
I tend to not re-make my modules before I test them (then again, they
are always pure perl so I don't need to do it as much in a C based
module). I have a small
On 2004-11-05, Jeff Bisbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I remember mentioning something to Andy, but at the time he didn't like
> it. I'm also curious how other folks run coverage, update modules
> and rerun coverage.
Using Module::Build, it's easy to run coverage:
./Build testcover [test opt
* Jim Keenan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is a report on differences between the output of
> 'make test' and 'prove' which are, well, different
> from those reported by Stevan Little in a thread
> beginning on Sept 4.
Are you sure the tarball and the installed version are the same? My
guess
This is a report on differences between the output of
'make test' and 'prove' which are, well, different
from those reported by Stevan Little in a thread
beginning on Sept 4.
While teaching myself how to use 'prove' tonight, I
decided to try it out on a Perl core module which I
have also been usin
RedHat's 5.8.0 was indeed loaded with several patches that tended to
break Perl in many unexpected ways. I actually suggest compiling from
source rather than using a recent RedHat/Fedora Perl.
Steve Peters
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
10 matches
Mail list logo
