Anything that would make the quality of the reviews worse (or malicious)
isn't a negative thing.
Or rather, it IS a negative thing. :)
Adam K
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
During YAPC::Europe in Birmingham I did a (rather short and un-hackish)
hackathon. Slides are available here:
http://domm.plix.at/talks/2006_birmingham_cpants/
During YAPC, I added a few new metrics:
- manifest_matches_dist
Check if the stuff listed in MANIFEST ma
Jonathan Rockway wrote:
I could be wrong here, but I think the check is to make sure that tar
doesn't set +x on Makefile.PL or Build.PL, thus forcing the user to run
the proper version of perl instead of automagically running the perl
that shebang points to. (Example: Makefile.PL says #!/usr/bin
Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:
Here's an initial attempt at a Gtk2 interface.
From running it against a few test suites and getting some strange
results, it seems like TAPx::Parser doesn't like lines like
ok 3 # comment
It flags the corresponding result as being of type "unknown".
And its cor
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Additionally, if you're going to keep this thing around, restricting the
examples to .pl files penalizes HTML (Mason or other templating system), POD
and module examples. [1] It would be best to just say that the directory
contains something.
Yep.
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 22:50, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > "t/sample-tests/todo" in the Test-Harness distribution reads:
> >
> > <<<
> > print < > 1..5 todo 3 2;
> > ok 1
> > ok 2
> > not ok 3
> > ok 4
> > ok 5
> > DUMMY_TEST
> >
> > As one can see, the "1..5"
Thanks for the updates, Thomas. And now on with the complaining!
Thomas Klausner wrote:
- has_example
An optional metric that checks if the author included a dir called
'eg|ex|example(s?)' which in turn includes at least on *.pl
IMO examples in an example directory are a detriment, not a
jerry gay wrote:
as i work on parrot, i happen to know a few language designers. i know
they're interested in providing feedback on the proposed TAP changes, but
(perhaps because i'm new to the list) i don't see a good thread to point
them to. is there a summary of changes, or something i've miss
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Is the "avoid mixing" warning out of date? Or in accord with future TAP
plans?
That dates back from the original version of Test::Builder in 2001.
Test::Harness has handled no numbers and mixing of with and without numbers for
as long as I know, but not always
Geoffrey Young wrote:
and
seems a little broken so I doubt anyone's using it,
I use it every day, and it's not broken for me...
By broken I mean I was surprised to find the behavior of Apache::Test changed
by changing the backend. I would have expected the interface to remain the
same. Lo
Ovid wrote:
$ perl -MTest -e 'plan tests => 10, todo => [2,4];'
1..10 todo 2 4;
As there are quite some test scripts out there that use it, staying
compatible with it sounds like a prerequisite.
By "it" do you mean Test.pm or Test.pm's todo feature? The former I can
believe. The latter... I
Shlomi Fish wrote:
"t/sample-tests/todo" in the Test-Harness distribution reads:
<<<
print
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 05:43 -0700, Ovid wrote:
> Further, though I don't know Tk or other windowing systems well
> enough, it should now be fairly easy to slap a GUI on TAPx::Parser.
Here's an initial attempt at a Gtk2 interface.
>From running it against a few test suites and getting some strang
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:27, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
> I could be wrong here, but I think the check is to make sure that tar
> doesn't set +x on Makefile.PL or Build.PL, thus forcing the user to run
> the proper version of perl instead of automagically running the perl
> that shebang poin
I could be wrong here, but I think the check is to make sure that tar
doesn't set +x on Makefile.PL or Build.PL, thus forcing the user to run
the proper version of perl instead of automagically running the perl
that shebang points to. (Example: Makefile.PL says #!/usr/bin/perl, but
you really want
On 9/6/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 02:53, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> - buildtool_not_executable
> Check if the buildtool (Makefile.PL, Build.PL) are not executable
> (and thus need to be called with 'perl Build.PL' thereby specifying
> which exact versio
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 02:53, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> - buildtool_not_executable
> Check if the buildtool (Makefile.PL, Build.PL) are not executable
> (and thus need to be called with 'perl Build.PL' thereby specifying
> which exact version of Perl you want)
I'm not sure of the val
> Its been doing that for the last 10 years or so. Try an espresso.
yeah, ok.
> Apache::Test, by default, sends diagnostics to STDERR. This is because
> by default it uses Test.pm which sends its errors to STDERR.
right. I haven't actually used the Test.pm interface in ages. but most
other
What namespace should I use?
So I've added a simplified counting of "McCabe Complexity" to my
"Perl::Code::Analayze" - I copied the complexity measuring code from
Perl::Critic (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Perl-Critic/lib/Perl/Critic/
Policy/Subroutines/ProhibitExcessComplexity.pm)
I'm wond
- Original Message
From: Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hmm, that's curious. However, if it's undocumented I would argue against
> > supporting it right now. What benefit does it gain us?
>
> This comes from the Good Old Test.pm module:
>
> $ perl -MTest -e 'plan test
Selon Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > As one can see, the "1..5" plan is followed by the "todo 3 2;" directive.
> > This is supposed to indicate something about plan ahead todo tests.
> > [...]
> > I'd like to know what I should do about this feature, because right now I'm
> > trying to convert Tes
On Sep 6, 2006, at 3:59 AM, Ovid wrote:
Hmm, that's curious. However, if it's undocumented I would argue
against supporting it right now. What benefit does it gain us?
The flip to that is that we've always said that Test::Harness is the
reference implementation. In a way, it is documente
Hi!
During YAPC::Europe in Birmingham I did a (rather short and un-hackish)
hackathon. Slides are available here:
http://domm.plix.at/talks/2006_birmingham_cpants/
During YAPC, I added a few new metrics:
- manifest_matches_dist
Check if the stuff listed in MANIFEST matches what's in the dist
- Original Message
From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "t/sample-tests/todo" in the Test-Harness distribution reads:
>
> <<<
> print < 1..5 todo 3 2;
> ok 1
> ok 2
> not ok 3
> ok 4
> ok 5
> DUMMY_TEST
> >>>
>
> As one can see, the "1..5" plan is followed by the "tod
24 matches
Mail list logo
