Can anyone else comment on this? I understand exactly where Shlomi is
coming from and I know that he's wrong in his thoughts, but there is
certainly a difference of opinion regarding 'correct' behavior.
> I find it unlikely that my code differs in interpreation from
> Test::Harness in
> this reg
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 09:17:00AM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>>> This comes from the OMGYOUBROKECPAN! diagnostics formatting change in
>>> 0.60_01.
>> Can we use that as the official name for this sort of error?
>>
>> Because the other alternative would be "Doing a Schwern
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 09:17:00AM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> >This comes from the OMGYOUBROKECPAN! diagnostics formatting change in
> >0.60_01.
>
> Can we use that as the official name for this sort of error?
>
> Because the other alternative would be "Doing a Schwern" and I I'm sure
> you'd
On Thursday 15 February 2007, Ovid wrote:
> --- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
> > > TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
>
> I've figured it out and that's because TAPx::Parser 0.41 was buggy and
> the latest TAPx::Parser has
This comes from the OMGYOUBROKECPAN! diagnostics formatting change in 0.60_01.
Can we use that as the official name for this sort of error?
Because the other alternative would be "Doing a Schwern" and I I'm sure
you'd prefer to preserve that term for something positive :)
Adam K
--- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
> > TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
I've figured it out and that's because TAPx::Parser 0.41 was buggy and
the latest TAPx::Parser has found a point where your code differs in
interpretat
On Thursday 15 February 2007, Ovid wrote:
> --- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least
> > the
> > bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
> > TAPx::Parser:
> >
> > <
> > sub is_ok {
> > my $self
--- Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least
> the
> bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
> TAPx::Parser:
>
> <
> sub is_ok {
> my $self = shift;
>
> return if $self->is_unplanned; # <
Ovid wrote:
> In the Test::More docs, for diagnostics, it reads:
>
> NOTE The exact formatting of the diagnostic output is still
> changing, but it is guaranteed that whatever you throw at it
> it won't interfere with the test.
>
> Given that this issue has bitten people more than once, can
On 15 Feb 2007, at 16:16, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least the
bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
TAPx::Parser:
<
sub is_ok {
my $self = shift;
return if $self->is_unplanned; # <---
# T
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This comes from the OMGYOUBROKECPAN! diagnostics formatting change in
> 0.60_01.
>
> Let me make this very clear once again, just so everyone knows:
> *-->THERE WAS NO API CHANGE BECAUSE THERE IS NO API TO CHANGE<--*
In the Test::More docs, for
Hi all!
On 2/15/07, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
Replying to myself I'd like to note that from my analysis at least the
bignum test failed because of the following code in the new
TAP
David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:48:57AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
>> Probably being stupid... but if you can point me towards the
>> difference between
>> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2007/02/msg415380.html
>> and
>> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl
On 15 Feb 2007, at 12:35, David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
The version of Test::Simple distributed with perl 5.6.2, which is
presumably being used by one of your dependencies, is 0.47, so one
result was testing with the earlier version, the other with the
current
version. There was an API change
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:48:57AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Probably being stupid... but if you can point me towards the
> difference between
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2007/02/msg415380.html
> and
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2007/02/msg4153
Hi!
Test::Run works fine with TAPx-Parser 0.41, but it breaks with the
TAPx-Parser from the trunk:
<<<
shlomif:$trunk/modules/Test-Shlomif-Harness$ perl -Ilib t/test-harness.t
1..182
ok 1
ok 2 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 3 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 4 # skip don't apply t
16 matches
Mail list logo
