Re: Module Announcement: Perl-Critic-1.01

And from all of us, I think a big Thank You and congratulations are in order. Adam K Jeffrey Thalhammer wrote: After more than 18 months of development, Perl-Critic has reached its first major release! Version 1.01 is now available on a CPAN mirror nea

Re: Devel::Cover newbie - what does 'yourprog' have to be?

Mike Malony wrote: I'm into testing, got some nice .t files, and prove tells me things I'd rather not hear. So, my next step on the straight and narrow path of testing, is to gauge my testing coverage. IN the doc, the synopsis suggests "perl -MDevel::Cover yourprog args cover" But what can

Re: Devel::Cover newbie - what does 'yourprog' have to be?

On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 01:32:37PM -0600, Mike Malony wrote: > I'm into testing, got some nice .t files, and prove tells me things I'd > rather not hear. So, my next step on the straight and narrow path of > testing, is to gauge my testing coverage. > > IN the doc, the synopsis suggests > "per

Devel::Cover newbie - what does 'yourprog' have to be?

I'm into testing, got some nice .t files, and prove tells me things I'd rather not hear. So, my next step on the straight and narrow path of testing, is to gauge my testing coverage. IN the doc, the synopsis suggests "perl -MDevel::Cover yourprog args cover" But what can you use in 'yourpro

Re: Bad test functions in Test::Exception

* Nadim Khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-02 16:30]: > I don't even know how we could handle the exception out of > DESTROY blocks but maybe this is already an error. I wish it > would propagate and we could handle it. I wish! http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=594416 -- *AUTOLOAD=*_;sub _{s/(

Re: Bad test functions in Test::Exception

* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-02 13:35]: > There is a different case that needs to be considered. Module > Fribble uses an eval in it's DESTROY method without error and > thus Foo's fatal error in an eval vanishes. I think there we can all agree at this point that global variables a

Re: Bad test functions in Test::Exception

On Friday 02 February 2007 10:09, Adrian Howard wrote: > [snip] > I'm unconvinced that this should be the default behaviour because I'm > fairly certain that a number of these new test failures - possibly > the majority - won't actually be indications of code that doesn't work. > > For example. Mod

Re: Test script with hierarchy

Gabor Szabo wrote: > Can I use TAP for this? Can TAP be used to represent such hierarchy? > Is there a module already doing something like this even without the HTML > report? This is something I would like Smolder (http://smolder.sf.net) to be able to handle too. TAP doesn't really support hie

Re: Bad test functions in Test::Exception

Hi Dave, On 2 Feb 2007, at 12:30, David Golden wrote: [snip] There is a different case that needs to be considered. Module Fribble uses an eval in it's DESTROY method without error and thus Foo's fatal error in an eval vanishes. [snip] Good point. Because Perl normally warns but doesn't die

Re: Bad test functions in Test::Exception

On 2/2/07, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For example. Module Foo uses objects from module Bar, which uses objects from module Ni, which uses objects from module Fribble, which has a exception in a DESTROY block that the author deliberately doesn't catch because it doesn't signify an er

Re: Test script with hierarchy

--- Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can, of course, use some kind of structured text in the test > description so you have output that looks something like: > > ok 1 - Test A/1/1 - fribble cleared > ok 2 - Test A/1/2 - bar set > ok 3 - Test A/1/3 - widget bobbling > ok 4

Re: Test script with hierarchy

On 2 Feb 2007, at 07:23, Gabor Szabo wrote: [snip] Can I use TAP for this? Can TAP be used to represent such hierarchy? Is there a module already doing something like this even without the HTML report? [snip] Currently there isn't any in built support for hierarchical test reporting in TAP

Re: Bad test functions in Test::Exception

On 1 Feb 2007, at 21:56, Nadim Khemir wrote: On Thursday 01 February 2007 22:37, Joshua ben Jore wrote: I'd be a happy guy if a paranoid T::E caused consternation and people to post "OMG! My stuff fails now!" to perlmonks or whatever. I use T::E extensively and I, too, would like to see a c

Re: Bad test functions in Test::Exception

On 1 Feb 2007, at 21:37, Joshua ben Jore wrote: [snip] Ok, I'll give you that a user may want to ignore errors that occur during scope cleanup but from the point of view of T::E, it seems relatively clear that an error really has occurred. I'd tend to think that T::E's default behavior would be