On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:33:11PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:59:40PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > To do it properly it would need to be on a machine somewhere which would
> > accept uploaded coverage databases from anyone who wanted to submit one.
> >
> > I di
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:59:40PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> To do it properly it would need to be on a machine somewhere which would
> accept uploaded coverage databases from anyone who wanted to submit one.
>
> I discussed cover.perl.org or something with Andy and Robrt on irc a
> while back
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:54:00PM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> >Nope. You're free to run it yourself though. :)
> >
> >Its likely to be pretty appauling because of all the multi-platform code
> >and that XS code is untested.
>
> I'll just take your word for it. :-)
Well, I ran it myself and it i
Le lundi 7 mars 2005, à 08 heures 05, Michael G Schwern écrivait :
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:33:43PM +0100, C?dric Bouvier wrote:
> > Maybe this list is not the right place to ask after all.
>
> module-authors@perl.org maybe?
>
Thank you Jim and Michael for the hint. I will post there. My ap
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:24:42AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
are MM or MB analyses posted anywhere for general perusal ?
Nope. You're free to run it yourself though. :)
Its likely to be pretty appauling because of all the multi-platform code and
that XS code is unte
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:24:42AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> are MM or MB analyses posted anywhere for general perusal ?
Nope. You're free to run it yourself though. :)
Its likely to be pretty appauling because of all the multi-platform code and
that XS code is untested.
> That'd be cool, but
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:24:42AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> >That's ok. The overall coverage report can show the union of all
> >reports for that version of the module.
>
> That'd be cool, but how does this merge/combining magically happen ?
To do it properly it
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:45:39AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
Theres another issue: coverage can depend upon presense of other modules,
ex Test::Warnings, being installed on testers boxes, those tests would
be skipped otherwise,
and perceived coverage would suffer.
CÃdric Bouvier wrote:
I think I will call it Run::Distributed after all.
http://search.cpan.org/search?query=%5Erun%3A%3A&mode=module
Looks like there's no Run::* namespace yet, and you usually need a
pretty good justification to start a new namespace.
If your module is just a generic way to r
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:45:39AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> Theres another issue: coverage can depend upon presense of other modules,
> ex Test::Warnings, being installed on testers boxes, those tests would
> be skipped otherwise,
> and perceived coverage would suffer.
That's ok. The overall
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:45:52AM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> > * As mentioned, Devel::Cover is not perfect and often screws up test
> > results, threading particularly is a problem, so that it will give
> > false negatives. This is a common problem, one example is Test::More.
CÃdric Bouvier wrote:
I think I will call it Run::Distributed after all.
theres also module-authors@perl.org that discusses name-space choices
regularly.
I think I will call it Run::Distributed after all.
--
C Ã d r i c B o u v i e r
Le dimanche 6 mars 2005, Ã 22 heures 01, CÃdric Bouvier Ãcrivait :
> Hello there.
>
> I once had to organize the stress testing of a web based application.
> The client wanted to know whether the server would han
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:42:53PM -0800, Ofer Nave wrote:
> t/Parallel-SimpleUndefined subroutine &main::prun called at
> Lastly, how come use_ok( 'Parallel::Simple' ) didn't bitch at me?
Because you already have an older version installed which does not have
a function called prun()? Sh
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:19:05PM -0800, Ofer Nave wrote:
> Doesn't is_deeply do everything eq_array and eq_hash does and more? It
> looks like is_deeply has the same exact interface and purpose, except
> that it accepts both arrayrefs and hashrefs. So why would you need
> eq_array and eq_has
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 06:40:20PM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> Ive written some tests that verify writing to STDOUT, etc,
> which were easy to do as `$X ... ` jobs.
>
> but these dont get covered by default, so my coverage results are not
> what they should be.
> Is there an easy way to do what
Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Selon Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:54:44PM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Instead of running the code on one server, where it's a problem, why
not running on machines where all prereq modules are already instal
Le dimanche 6 mars 2005, à 21 heures 31, Michael G Schwern écrivait :
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:01:19PM +0100, C?dric Bouvier wrote:
> > I have something almost working right now. I'd like to upload it to
> > CPAN (after I have at least improved the documentation kindly
> > written by Module::S
Selon Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:54:44PM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> > Instead of running the code on one server, where it's a problem, why
> > not running on machines where all prereq modules are already installed,
> > i.e. on machines where
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> main() unless caller;
I use this (and teach it in my trainings) as an easy way to insert
some basic verification tests in modules. At the end of the module:
unless ( caller ) {
package main;
... insert test code ...
}
-- Johan
20 matches
Mail list logo
