Adam Kennedy wrote:
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests => 1;
my $Test = Test::More->builder;
my $counter = $Test->current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test->current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has
On 2/8/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> > hi all :)
> >
> > there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
> > ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
> > plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan)
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests => 1;
my $Test = Test::More->builder;
my $counter = $Test->current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test->current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has to be set to the number of tests run in the o
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests => 1;
my $Test = Test::More->builder;
my $counter = $Test->current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test->current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
__END__
---response.pl---
use Test::More no_plan => 1;
Test::More->bui
On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:41, Geoffrey Young wrote:
with your suggestion I'm almost there:
1..1
ok 1 - this was a passing test
# No tests run!
What parts do you want left out?
Best,
David
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate p
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate perl interpreter. for
>> so, thoughts or ideas? am I making any sense?
>
>
> Yes, you are.
*whew*
:)
> I think that the subprocess can load Test::More and
> friends like this:
>
> use Test::More no_plan => 1;
> Test::More->builder->no_header(1);
cool, thanks.
>
> That will set No_Plan, Have_Plan, and No_Hea
On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:41, Geoffrey Young wrote:
so, I guess my question is whether the plan->is linkage can be
broken in
Test::Builder/Test::Harness/wherever and still keep the bookkeeping in
tact so that the library behaves the same way for the bulk case. or
maybe at least provide some optio
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate perl interpreter. for example, I want
to do s
Hi,
I recently fell in love with Test::Base and I decided to use
it at $work. Since the 'run filter, compare output' mode
of T::B did not fit my needs, I wrote a small wrapper
(Test::XXX for now...) that
enables to check/establish preconditions, run one or
more actions and check postconditions, f
11 matches
Mail list logo
