On 20/09/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 14:35, Fergal Daly wrote:
> HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE A GOOD THING? Compare it with the case where
> we make them real tests
>
> - a prefectly clear run means nothing is broken
> - a run with failures means something
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-19 17:05]:
> I'd recommend trying this:
>
> my $parser = TAPx::Parser->new( { source => $source } );
>
> I did that to simplify building parsers and it's new as of
> 0.30. $source can be one of:
>
> 1. An array reference of TAP lines.
> 2. A complete stri
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 14:35, Fergal Daly wrote:
> HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE A GOOD THING? Compare it with the case where
> we make them real tests
>
> - a prefectly clear run means nothing is broken
> - a run with failures means something is broken
>
> which is exactly how life should be.
The crux of this is #1 and #2 in the first part below and "HOW CAN
THIS POSSIBLY BE A GOOD THING?" in the second part.
Using TODO tests instead of normal tests in the examples below has a
small benefit that can be achieved in other ways and a cost of false
passes and confusion.
On 20/09/06, Mich
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 07:53, demerphq wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you get a reference to a blessed object and that object has
> > overloaded stringification then please just treat it as a string, not a
> > reference.
> You of course are aware of what a
> You of course are aware of what a pain it is to apply this logic?
Yes, which is exactly why you shouldn't mess around with references
where they're not necessary. I suggest:
my $foo = Foo::Bar->new({path => $path});
or
my $foo = Foo::Bar->new({data => $data});
Foo::Bar::new looks like:
sub
- Original Message
From: Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've been caught out by passing something like a Path::Class::File
> object, which stringifies just fine as a file path, to modules like this
> if only they'd just treat it as a string -- but instead overjealous
> checking spots that
On 9/20/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ovid writes:
> From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > H you may wish to differentiate between #2 and #3 by saying
> > that a filename is passed as a plain string, while a string is
> > passed by taking a reference to it. That's what Tem
Ovid writes:
> From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > H you may wish to differentiate between #2 and #3 by saying
> > that a filename is passed as a plain string, while a string is
> > passed by taking a reference to it. That's what Template Toolkit and
> > other modules are doing.
>
- Original Message
From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> H you may wish to differentiate between #2 and #3 by saying that a
> filename is passed as a plain string, while a string is passed by taking a
> reference to it. That's what Template Toolkit and other modules are doing.
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 17:59, Ovid wrote:
> - Original Message
> From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >my $parser =
> >TAPx::Parser->new(
> >{
> >stream => TAPx::Parser::Iterator->new($test_output_orig),
> >}
> >);
>
>
Michael,
You've studiously avoided answering whether or not you would accept a patch for
Test::Builder which would allow STDERR to be sent to STDOUT. I realize
Test::Harness can't use it, but others can. Unless I'm missing something very
fundamental, it makes most of my problems in this area
On 9/20/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-18 13:15]:
> In Regexp::Common's case the tests are almost entirely
> generated so fixing them would be easy.
No way. Abigail lovingly hand-crafted every last one of those
240,000 tests (or whate
13 matches
Mail list logo
