On Saturday 16 September 2006 14:42, Fergal Daly wrote:
> So, a passing TODO tells me that either the author
> - writes bad tests
> - means something else entirely by TODO
> - didn't run the test suite before this release
I can buy these, to some degree.
> or
> - my environment is different to t
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:36:50PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> The tenor of the opinions in the passing TODO tests bother me a bit. It
> seems folks have forgotten why the CPAN installation chain exists.
> Especially the assertion that its perfectly ok for modules to start failing
> even
On 16/09/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> I'm agnostic on whether it should pass or fail (perhaps trying to
> wedge 3 states into 2 is root of the problem) but to me, a passing
> todo test implies that the author doesn't understand either his code
> or my envi
The tenor of the opinions in the passing TODO tests bother me a bit. It seems
folks have forgotten why the CPAN installation chain exists. Especially the
assertion that its perfectly ok for modules to start failing even though
there's nothing wrong with them (unless you raally stretch thin
Ovid wrote:
> And here's the answer:
>
> I'll add a feature to TAPx::Parser which will allow one to choose whether or
> not 'ok # TODO' passes.
Please don't.
1) It breaks TAP.
TODO and SKIP tests pass. They've always passed. There's no good reason to
change this. Breaking protocols is b
Fergal Daly wrote:
> I'm agnostic on whether it should pass or fail (perhaps trying to
> wedge 3 states into 2 is root of the problem) but to me, a passing
> todo test implies that the author doesn't understand either his code
> or my environment. Neither are good signs for reliability of the
> mod
On 16/09/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 16 September 2006 01:31, Ovid wrote:
> In this case, Test::Harness and friends report that 'ok 9 # todo' is
> passing, not failing, but I'm reporting the opposite result. I think my
> behavior is more correct because I'm trying to wri
On Saturday 16 September 2006 01:31, Ovid wrote:
> In this case, Test::Harness and friends report that 'ok 9 # todo' is
> passing, not failing, but I'm reporting the opposite result. I think my
> behavior is more correct because I'm trying to write things so that someone
> who forgets writes a ba
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 09:27:21AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Seems to me this should be an config option to decide between checking the
> point where a feature existed and when it stopped sucking.
That sounds like a useful distinction. Hopefully for most features "stopped
sucking" won't
And here's the answer:
I'll add a feature to TAPx::Parser which will allow one to choose whether or
not 'ok # TODO' passes.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
- Original Message -
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Finally, this argument seems to be that "not ok # TODO"
> should fail which is to say "don't use TODO tests".
I reread what I wrote and I left an extra sentence in there which I didn't
mean, hence the confusion. 'not ok
Ovid wrote:
> - Original Message
> From: Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> What I find surprising is the concept that a TODO test is assumed to fail.
>>
>> If I mark a test (block) as TODO, I would have thought by flagging some
>> tests as not done yet then for the purposes of PASS/F
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern
> Why do "ok # TODO" tests pass? Users will report
> "the tests failed and the CPAN shell won't install it
> and now I can't install and
> OMGWTF your shit is broke" when in fact it works
> even better than the author thought!
> In
Ovid wrote:
> The following line is giving me pause:
>
> ok 9 Elegy 9B # TOdO
>
> That's an 'unexpectedly succeeded' test ('bonus', in the Test::Harness
> world).
I agree "bonus" is not a very good term. It was what was in the TH code when I
dug out the TODO functionality.
> R
Adam Kennedy wrote:
>> utf8.pm was added in 5.6.0 not 5.8.0
>
>
> I think that was more of a case of utf not working WELL until in the 5.8
> series.
>
> I'm not sure on the details though.
All of Unicode didn't work well until 5.8, but do you want to encode such
things? If you go down tha
- Original Message
From: Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I find surprising is the concept that a TODO test is assumed to fail.
>
> If I mark a test (block) as TODO, I would have thought by flagging some
> tests as not done yet then for the purposes of PASS/FAIL I don't care
> wh
What I find surprising is the concept that a TODO test is assumed to fail.
If I mark a test (block) as TODO, I would have thought by flagging some
tests as not done yet then for the purposes of PASS/FAIL I don't care
what the result it.
Broken or incomplete code may still have a failure mode
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:31:28AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> The following line is giving me pause:
>
> ok 9 Elegy 9B # TOdO
>
> That's an 'unexpectedly succeeded' test ('bonus', in the Test::Harness
> world).
>
> Right now, if that read 'not ok # TODO', TAPx::Parser would have this:
>
On 9/16/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following line is giving me pause:
ok 9 Elegy 9B # TOdO
That's an 'unexpectedly succeeded' test ('bonus', in the Test::Harness world).
Right now, if that read 'not ok # TODO', TAPx::Parser would have this:
passedtrue
actual_p
The following line is giving me pause:
ok 9 Elegy 9B # TOdO
That's an 'unexpectedly succeeded' test ('bonus', in the Test::Harness world).
Right now, if that read 'not ok # TODO', TAPx::Parser would have this:
passedtrue
actual_passedfalse
todo_failedfalse
B
20 matches
Mail list logo
