Here, have some support for closures!
Thanks Nuffin!
Begin forwarded message:
From: PAUSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: August 6, 2006 10:29:17 PM CDT
To: "Andy Lester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CPAN Upload: P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Memory-Cycle-1.04.tar.gz
Reply-To: cpan-testers@perl.org
The upload
Since this is a really common discussion, I've summed it up on the Wiki.
http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/Acceptance_vs_Unit_Tests
(I'm going to s/functional testing/acceptance testing/g here because
to me there's not a whole lot of difference between a unit test and a
functional test).
Both your reasoning are correct. The question is now one of practicality.
For one, its never just one or the other. Its not acceptance te
David Golden wrote:
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 corn
> There is this big hairball of under-tested code. (Nothing new here)
> So the question is, which to tackle first - unit tests, or functional tests.
Generally, I agree with the earlier responders endorsing your approach
and I've little to add to their thoughtful remarks.
Perhaps the major benefit
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:36:38AM +0200, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> James E Keenan wrote:
>
> > The ex-typographer in me has to carp, however, at some of the changes in
> > the HTML output. The rules bordering boxes need more attention, as the
> > mixture of light and heavy rules is no
On Aug 6, 2006, at 5:41 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
There is this big hairball of under-tested code. (Nothing new here)
So the question is, which to tackle first - unit tests, or
functional tests.
Functional tests - for all the reasons you and others have given.
That said, unit test on exist
On 6 Aug 2006, at 13:41, Nicholas Clark wrote:
[snip]
My view is that because the actual output of the code isn't well
specified
(sadly nothing that new there either), if we write functional tests to
verify that the behaviour we desire is present, then we're actually
killing
two birds with o
- Original Message
From: A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are we looking at the same report? In the one you linked, I don’t
> see anything about Sub::Override, but I see a lot of the
> following:
Yes, that is a tes failure for Sub::Override. Go to
http://cpantesters.perl.org/show/Sub
Nicholas Clark wrote:
There is this big hairball of under-tested code. (Nothing new here)
So the question is, which to tackle first - unit tests, or functional tests.
[snip]
the actual output of the code isn't well specified
(sadly nothing that new there either), if we write functional tests to
Ovid wrote:
That appears to be someone trying to install Catalyst and a completely
unrelated failure is being reported in Sub::Override, one of my modules. At
least that's what I *think* the output is saying. Heck, the reason the bug
shows up isn't because Catalyst is trying to use Sub::Ov
Ovid wrote:
That appears to be someone trying to install Catalyst and a completely
unrelated failure is being reported in Sub::Override, one of my modules. At
least that's what I *think* the output is saying. Heck, the reason the bug
shows up isn't because Catalyst is trying to use Sub::Ov
On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 13:41 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> This is sort of off-topic because it's more a general question about testing,
> rather than Perl specific, but the code in question happens to be written in
> Perl...
>
> There is this big hairball of under-tested code. (Nothing new here)
This is sort of off-topic because it's more a general question about testing,
rather than Perl specific, but the code in question happens to be written in
Perl...
There is this big hairball of under-tested code. (Nothing new here)
So the question is, which to tackle first - unit tests, or function
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-06 12:30]:
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/310016
>
> That appears to be someone trying to install Catalyst and a
> completely unrelated failure is being reported in
> Sub::Override, one of my modules. At least that's what I
> *think* the ou
So for a while I was including Sub::UpLevel in the requirements to many of my
modules simply to stop spurious test failures when CPANPLUS didn't follow
dependencies correctly and failed to load that (It was used by Test::Exception).
After that annoyance, I'm now noticing the following:
http:/
16 matches
Mail list logo
