On 1/31/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 11:44, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-31 19:40]:
Write your own. perldoc Test::Harness::Straps or see the
examples in chapter 3 of the Perl Testing book:
That's not a long-term answer
On 1/31/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 12:22, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Adding more information to the default Test::Harness summary doesn't make
sense to me. It's a user tool. It's important to list failures there, as
the code might not work right, but
On 1/31/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:31, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hmm. That's a good point. Maybe the way to approach this would be
to include a default harness for use by developer tools, which
would include more chattiness about passing TODO tests.
My
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:36:47AM -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
OK, speaking of Kwalitee, I saw cpants for the first time today.
And saw that it claims to update every sunday, but there hasn't been an
update since december 5th.
On the one hand I'm having problems with the server
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 00:26, demerphq wrote:
And I think you've conveniently sidestepped my main point which is
that TODO tests passing are errors.
I didn't sidestep it. I just disagree.
Consider you have two TODO tests,
both of which depend on a common set of functionality. Both
Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a class of tests that module authors perform that end users
are not expected to run. For example code coverage tests, spelling
tests, coding style tests, etc. These tests are either prohibitively
expensive or complicated or unpredictable
The trouble is, EVERYONE wants to add just one more little dependency
(me included *cough*Params::Util*cough*).
I'll make you a deal.
Write this up. Then exhaustively test it on every single Perl platform
(50ish?) and every Perl version back to 5.004, including a random
collection similarly
