Gee, I love YAML. (Sigh.)
You and me both.
It's at this point I make very quiet noises about YAML::Tiny, and how it
only supports ordinary data, so things like objects and circulars and
other crazy things can't happen.
It's not "done" yet, but the basics all should work.
You might want
On 7/21/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/20/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I am not mistaken the problem with no_plan is that the test script
> might exit before actually running all the tests you wanted and Harness
> won't notice it.
PS In all my years of
On 7/21/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> What would be the correct and easy way to test only links that are
> internal to
> the site. Maybe a
>
> page_internal_links_ok() method?
How would you have it determine what's internal?
When
On Jul 20, 2006, at 9:07 PM, David Golden wrote:
$node is a YAML::Node and the EXISTS function only checks for
things stored in the NODE property, not the HASH property. I'm not
sure exactly what those two are supposed to be representing, but
the point is that the "exists $node->{versio
John Peacock wrote:
David Golden wrote:
[cc'd to perl-qa for awareness of the issue]
The switch to version objects in Module::Build means that the generated
META.yml now has this:
Is this with or without YAML itself loaded (so I know where to start)?
I did a little digging and this line do
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 01:30]:
> On 7/20/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >use Test::More;
> >
> >plan tests => my $tests;
> >
> >{
> >require_ok( 'MyModule' );
> >my $obj = MyModule->new();
> >isa_ok( $obj, 'MyModule' );
On 21/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 16:57, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 21/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Test an XS component. Segfaults don't call done_testing_now().
> >
> > Yes, that happened to me last night. Yes, I had 'no_plan' active.
On Thursday 20 July 2006 16:57, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 21/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Test an XS component. Segfaults don't call done_testing_now().
> >
> > Yes, that happened to me last night. Yes, I had 'no_plan' active. Yes,
> > I noticed it as a happy accident, thinkin
On 21/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 16:01, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I am not mistaken the problem with no_plan is that the test script
> > might exit before actually running all the tests you want
On Thursday 20 July 2006 16:01, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I am not mistaken the problem with no_plan is that the test script
> > might exit before actually running all the tests you wanted and Harness
> > won't notice it.
> PS In all my
On 7/20/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
use Test::More;
plan tests => my $tests;
{
require_ok( 'MyModule' );
my $obj = MyModule->new();
isa_ok( $obj, 'MyModule' );
}
BEGIN { $tests += 3 }
Pretty sneaky. This is now in the FAQ.
http://pe
On 7/20/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I am not mistaken the problem with no_plan is that the test script
might exit before actually running all the tests you wanted and Harness
won't notice it.
PS In all my years of testing I have never been bitten by this in the
real world whi
On 7/20/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I am not mistaken the problem with no_plan is that the test script
might exit before actually running all the tests you wanted and Harness
won't notice it.
That's what I wanted to avoid.
So maybe if there was a mode where Test::Builder did n
[cc'd to perl-qa for awareness of the issue]
The switch to version objects in Module::Build means that the generated
META.yml now has this:
name: Class-InsideOut
version: !!perl/hash:Module::Build::Version
original: 1.00
version:
- 1
- 0
That can't be good for backwards compatibil
On 7/20/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Exactly. :-) Take a look at, for instance, IPC::Run's test cases...
an array of sub{} blocks, some of which get skipped over on certain OS'es.
It'd be really easy to accidentally put to ok()'s in one sub{} block and
screw up the count
On Thursday 20 July 2006 14:46, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Your example does not produce any incorrect output.
Perhaps "incorrect" is a very poor word choice, but I certainly consider the
stack trace behavior potentially unhelpful and potentially misleading.
I will make one more attempt to demonstrat
* Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-20 21:15]:
> Take a look at, for instance, IPC::Run's test cases... an array
> of sub{} blocks, some of which get skipped over on certain
> OS'es. It'd be really easy to accidentally put to ok()'s in one
> sub{} block and screw up the count.
In the co
* Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-20 22:10]:
> use Test::More;
>
> subplan tests => 2;
>
> require_ok('MyModule');
> my $obj = MyModule->new();
> isa_ok($obj, 'MyModule');
>
> my @cities = ("Brasilia", "Rio de Janeiro", "Salvador");
>
> subplan tests => [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>
> fo
On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 13:50, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Example code please.
You *quoted* my example code in multiple messages, including this one.
Your example does not produce any incorrect output. Nothing I have
seen in any thread has produced
On Jul 20, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
What would be the correct and easy way to test only links that are
internal to
the site. Maybe a
page_internal_links_ok() method?
How would you have it determine what's internal?
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM
While using page_link_ok it checks all the links on the page,
including those that point to external sites.
It is bth unpolite - why hit their site every time I run my test script and
when I am working off line it generates false errors.
What would be the correct and easy way to test only links
On Thursday 20 July 2006 13:50, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Example code please.
You *quoted* my example code in multiple messages, including this one.
> You're saying there's a situation where using
> $Level produces the incorrect output. I'm saying there isn't.
I don't know what else to call a stac
On 20/07/06, Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> I have svn commit access but no idea how to use it prooperly so
> attached is a 5 line patch to Test::Builder to make it say things like
I think I would vote for this, but maybe with a setting or environment
variable to e
On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 02:59, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > There already exist two long-accepted, well-understood, coded, tested,
> > and debugged ways to answer both questions. I don't see the value in
> > adding a third, especially when it's not s
On Jul 20, 2006, at 13:38, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
When I made changes, I usually
decreased radically the size of the sample to not be drowned in "not
ok". When everything was alright, I returned to sample sizes of 100 or
so. It would have been easier if I could count with simple expressions
and
On 7/20/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand this. I have a Vim macro that switches between:
use Test::More 'no_plan';
... and:
use Test::More tests => 1;
When I work on a test suite, I switch off the plan. When I finish, I look at
the number of tests
On 7/20/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
> Ok, that's weird. But it may occasionally have usefulness. Gabor
> started the thread with the idea of having a test against web pages,
> which he doesn't know how many at the beginning, bu
On Thursday 20 July 2006 13:05, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
> Sometimes, I would like to
> have something like that below so that I don't need to think about how
> to compute the number of tests beforehand
I don't understand this. I have a Vim macro that switches between:
use Test::More 'no
On 7/20/06, Hakim Cassimally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Restructuring your tests (moving OS-dependent, skippable sections to
their own scripts for example) might make the requirement for a
deferred plan seem less important ?
Writing tests is harder. Writing code is more rewarding to the heart.
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
Ok, that's weird. But it may occasionally have usefulness. Gabor
started the thread with the idea of having a test against web pages,
which he doesn't know how many at the beginning, but which may be
verified at the end - his count against Te
On 7/20/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
> was emitted, it would mean the test *should* tell the plan at the end.
> If it doesn't, it is a failure. I don't think this is no protection.
> It may be an improvement to 'no_plan' in cert
On 7/20/06, Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When something like
> >>> use Test::More tests => 'defer';
was emitted, it would mean the test *should* tell the plan at the end.
If it doesn't, it is a failure. I don't think this is no protection.
It may be an improvement to 'no_pl
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Adriano Ferreira wrote:
was emitted, it would mean the test *should* tell the plan at the end.
If it doesn't, it is a failure. I don't think this is no protection.
It may be an improvement to 'no_plan' in certain circumstances.
What circumstance would that be?
--
On 7/20/06, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What benefit would that give? plan() is nice because it provides protection
>> against you test script exiting prematurely.
>
>
> The exact same benefit as doing a 'plan' at the
> beginning, except this would work for scripts that don't k
Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the calculated result used in the
> > 'plan' at the end does not match the number of tests actually run, then you
> > know you've got a problem with your test code.
> >
>
> So this gives you protection against not being able to count?
Exac
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> use Test::More tests => 'defer';
>>>
>>> and then
>>>
>>> plan past_tests => $n;
>> What benefit would that give? plan() is nice because it provides protection
>> against you test script exiting prematurely.
>
>
4) Adopt a Perl Mongers group.
None around.
Andy means adopt a PM mailing list. Mention things like the M::I issue
to mongers groups that may not have anyone on perl-qa or the perl6 lists.
--
Jonathan Rockway
Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > use Test::More tests => 'defer';
> >
> > and then
> >
> > plan past_tests => $n;
>
> What benefit would that give? plan() is nice because it provides protection
> against you test script exiting prematurely.
The exact same benefit as do
Adriano Ferreira wrote:
> It would be something different, like
>
> use Test::More tests => 'defer';
>
> and then
>
> plan past_tests => $n;
What benefit would that give? plan() is nice because it provides protection
against you test script exiting prematurely.
--
Michael Peter
On 7/20/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/20/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand I can count them during the test and can tell
> Test::More that I was actually expecting $n tests.
This is exactly how no_plan works.
use Test::More 'no_plan';
Te
On 7/20/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As this is a live site with user created pages I don't know up front how
many pages I am going to test thus I don't know the number of tests
before I run them.
On the other hand I can count them during the test and can tell
Test::More that I was
On Thursday 20 July 2006 02:59, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > There already exist two long-accepted, well-understood, coded, tested,
> > and debugged ways to answer both questions. I don't see the value in
> > adding a third, especially when it's not substantially better than either
> > and can be wrong
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:56:36PM +0200, Salve J Nilsen wrote:
Is there a (public) authoritative META.yml spec describing required,
recommended and supported fields?
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html
Thanks, and it seems there are newer vers
Adam Kennedy wrote:
[...]
I'd actually love to see some statistics, if we are collecting any, of
the "good vs bad" scores for the various kwalitee elements over time.
That might give us a better idea of how big an impact there is.
Of course, we wouldn't have any stats from before CPANTS exis
Salve J Nilsen wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
The presence of lack thereof is more an indication of the scale and
importance of the module, rather than anything you can judge all 10k
modules by.
I'd rather interpret the presence/lack of community pointers as an
indication of how interested that
On Jul 20, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Can I somehow do this - promise at the beginning that I will tell
my plan at the end. (It should consider it a failuer if I don't
give plan in the end.)
No. That's not how plans work.
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.c
On 20/07/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly writes:
> On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 18:10, Fergal Daly wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:39:11AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Simple question. Given this
On 20/07/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message
From: Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I admit, I did not even know that it existed until recently.
> I guess I have not read the full documentation of Test::More and Test::Builder
> but I assume there are not many that do
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:56:36PM +0200, Salve J Nilsen wrote:
> Is there a (public) authoritative META.yml spec describing required,
> recommended and supported fields?
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi
Fergal Daly writes:
> On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 18:10, Fergal Daly wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:39:11AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Simple question. Given this code:
> > > > >
> > > > > sub foo {
> > > > >
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Salve J Nilsen wrote:
Just a wild thought...
Would it be useful to check for references to community support
channels like mailing lists, IRC channels, public bug trackers and
official web pages?
One way to do this could be to look for relevant keywords in the
META.yml
I've heard people commenting variants of "people will ignore perfectly
good modules unless they have score Foo" or "people will use crap
modules just because they have score Foo" - but I've never actually seen
it happen in Real Life.
Has anybody?
Just a long as we don't show the CPANTS score
This is partially true, but this is the beginning of a slippery slope
down to:
$i++ # increment $i by one
Things like can_ok($foo, "bar") are obvious on the surface -- but it's
good practice to document why you care that $foo can "bar", right?
Regards,
Jonathan Rockway
(My mind idly wonders
I have a nasty workaround.
# at the beginning
my $test_allowance = 100;
plan tests => $test_allowance;
# run the tests here and for each test also execute
$test_allowance--;
# in the end
ok(1) while $test_allowance--;
I really hope there is a nicer way to do it.
Gabor
http://www.szabgab.
On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 18:10, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:39:11AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > > Simple question. Given this code:
> > >
> > > sub foo {
> > > my $t
While testing a *live* web site I crawl through several pages.
For each page I would like to do some tests
(e.g. it has a link to home, its HTML is valid, etc.)
As this is a live site with user created pages I don't know up front how
many pages I am going to test thus I don't know the number of t
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:17:02AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Please note the for the next few hours cpants.perl.org will show
> slightly strange results, as a big reindexing is currently happending.
It's finished by now.
Here's a list of dists failing the new Module::Install metric:
- Original Message
From: Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I admit, I did not even know that it existed until recently.
> I guess I have not read the full documentation of Test::More and Test::Builder
> but I assume there are not many that do.
>
> [regarding documentation of $Test::Build
On 19 Jul 2006, at 08:18, Steffen Mueller wrote:
Andy Lester schrieb:
At this point, CPANTS rules are getting into the realm of purely
self-pleasuring. If more than a dozen people outside of this
small enclave of people cares whether a module gets a 16 or 17,
I'll be shocked.
Personall
On 7/20/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem with $Level is that people don't use it correctly. You want to
solve this by providing another element of code that more people will have to
use more frequently and hoping that they use it correctly. I'm not sure that's
a good assump
60 matches
Mail list logo
