On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
Is there anything out there that will generate a tree of
dependencies, probably based on META.yml?
I figure I can pass in Mason, Test::WWW::Mechanize and Catalyst and
get back a list of dependencies that those require. It would be
the enti
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:24:49PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> Is there anything out there that will generate a tree of
> dependencies, probably based on META.yml?
>
> I figure I can pass in Mason, Test::WWW::Mechanize and Catalyst and
> get back a list of dependencies that those require. It
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 03:10:30PM -0700, Joe McMahon wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>
> >Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>How about a stripe for this shit?
> >>
> >>http://search.cpan.org/src/SKNPP/Chest-0.082/lib/Chest.pm
> >
> >Kwalitee metric: "Packa
On Jul 21, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about a stripe for this shit?
http://search.cpan.org/src/SKNPP/Chest-0.082/lib/Chest.pm
Kwalitee metric: "Package does not depend on Chest.pm". ;-)
I was thinking "Author is not batshit insane"
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about a stripe for this shit?
>
> http://search.cpan.org/src/SKNPP/Chest-0.082/lib/Chest.pm
Kwalitee metric: "Package does not depend on Chest.pm". ;-)
- Tyler
Andy Lester wrote:
How about a stripe for this shit?
http://search.cpan.org/src/SKNPP/Chest-0.082/lib/Chest.pm
It's been seen before. I think all of DOMIZIO's stuff is written that
way. There was a thread on it on Perlmonks a while back:
http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=349737
Regar
* Joe McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 20:45]:
> On Jul 21, 2006, at 9:50 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >I assume it’s because, despite the order in the file, the
> >BEGIN block runs before the `plan tests => 2` line.
> That's correct; since the "plan" is invoked separately, the
> BEGIN block's
On Friday 21 July 2006 12:17, Andy Lester wrote:
> http://search.cpan.org/src/SKNPP/Chest-0.082/lib/Chest.pm
Half of that is a valid Scheme program.
-- c
On Friday 21 July 2006 12:14, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> Of *course* it’s not BEGIN that’s buggy. I was commenting on the
> fact that nothing in T::B/T::M screams bloody murder when you run
> a test before you’ve declared your plan. Assuming I conjectured
> correctly, then if that’s what not a bug, I d
How about a stripe for this shit?
http://search.cpan.org/src/SKNPP/Chest-0.082/lib/Chest.pm
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
* Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 20:05]:
> On Friday 21 July 2006 19:50, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >I assume it’s because, despite the order in the file, the
> >BEGIN block runs before the `plan tests => 2` line.
> >
> >Sure looks like a bug.
>
> I don't think that it is. Perl preprocesse
I will never get used to mailing lists that don't default to "reply
all"...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joe McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: July 21, 2006 11:43:31 AM PDT
To: A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Test::More, BEGIN use_ok, plan, what?
On Jul 21, 2006, at 9:50 AM,
On Friday 21 July 2006 19:50, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> Hi Adriano,
>
> * Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 15:20]:
> > If I run this script
> >
> >use Test::More;
> >
> >plan tests => 2;
> >
> >BEGIN { use_ok( 'My', 'foo' ); }
> >
> >ok(1);
> >is(foo, 1);
> >
> > I g
Hi Adriano,
* Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 15:20]:
> If I run this script
>
>use Test::More;
>
>plan tests => 2;
>
>BEGIN { use_ok( 'My', 'foo' ); }
>
>ok(1);
>is(foo, 1);
>
> I got the output, which says nothing about the use_ok. It is
> not counted as
* David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 14:55]:
> I think the enjoyment of getting that last extra point for 18
> Kwalitee far outweighs the anguish due to the decline in mean
> Kwalitee when releasing a new module. After all, this decrease
> tends towards zero as the number of your releas
If I run this script
use Test::More;
plan tests => 2;
BEGIN { use_ok( 'My', 'foo' ); }
ok(1);
is(foo, 1);
I got the output, which says nothing about the use_ok. It is not
counted as a test, it does not ruin the plan, it does its job
(requiring and importing a &foo subroutine).
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 17:08, 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?
>
Interesting idea. One thing I should probably note is tha
On 20 Jul 2006, at 00:38, demerphq wrote:
[snip]
The whole reason this thread started was that i suggested that test
descriptions be mandatory, as they were in my opinion the best way to
resolve this problem.
[snip]
How about something like:
---
package Test::StrictName;
use Test::Builder;
us
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
I've found some tuits to spend on CPANTS, so I changed the whole author
rating thing (aka the CPANTS game).
I've split the metrics into core metircs and optional ones. At the
moment, the only optional metric is 'is_prereq'.
I've also changed the kwalitee rating from
I'm beaten over this argument. After a little thought,
I agree with Andy and chromatic that the "plan at the end"
buys very little and can disturb the simplicity of the testing
API for nothing.
After all, it is very easy to write a code like that
and rewrite our examples.
use Test::More 'no_
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 }
[snip clever code]
Like Schwern said, this stuff
On 7/20/06, David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You probably could have used Test::More->builder->expected_tests to
set the sample sized based on whatever value you put into the plan.
I didn't know about Test::Builder->expected_tests, but from the code
of Test::Builder 0.33 it looks like i
Steffen Mueller wrote:
John Peacock schrieb:
David Golden wrote:
(Though technically, it really ought to check that the ref equals
"Module::Build::Version").
No, that would be wrong too. Never test a ref() against a specific
object
class, since it paints you into a corner with inheritance.
John Peacock schrieb:
David Golden wrote:
Dropping the "exists" or changing that to "ref $node->{version}" makes
it all work just fine.
I'll run a few tests in the AM, using both YAML and the fallback M::B::YAML to
make sure there aren't any other surprises...
(Though technically, it really
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there anything out there that will generate a tree of
> dependencies, probably based on META.yml?
There are several modules, including my CPAN::Dependency (which I wrote two
years ago for giving you better numbers for Phalanx), the modules behind
CPANTS, mayb
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:24:49PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> Is there anything out there that will generate a tree of
> dependencies, probably based on META.yml?
AFAIK there are several people working on stuff like that
(Graph::Dependency, Module::Dependency, CPAN::Dependency, maybe more)
Le vendredi 14 juillet 2006 à 10:57, Gabor Szabo écrivait:
> Hi all,
>
> what is the current best practices for testing code that forks?
> I saw there was a recent discussion about patching Test::More
> to support forking.
> Is that going to happen or are there better ways to do it?
I have tests
Is there anything out there that will generate a tree of
dependencies, probably based on META.yml?
I figure I can pass in Mason, Test::WWW::Mechanize and Catalyst and
get back a list of dependencies that those require. It would be the
entire tree, so like so:
Test::WWW::Mechanize
Btw, the Module::Build list moved from module-build-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to module-build@perl.org
Shouldn't somebody disable the old list?
Ray
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:07 PM, John Peacock wrote:
David Golden wrote:
[cc'd to perl-qa for awareness of the issue]
The switch to version objec
David Golden wrote:
> Dropping the "exists" or changing that to "ref $node->{version}" makes
> it all work just fine.
I'll run a few tests in the AM, using both YAML and the fallback M::B::YAML to
make sure there aren't any other surprises...
> (Though technically, it really ought to check that t
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)?
John
--
John Peacock
Director of Information Research
31 matches
Mail list logo