Re: TAPx::Parser -> TAP::Parser?

2007-03-05 Thread Smylers
Ovid writes: > Schwern ... does not object to renaming TAPx::Parser to TAP::Parser. Please do it! For anybody first encountering it after the rename it is one less arbitrary fact to remember, one less question they have about it. And obviously the sooner the better, from the point of view of mi

TAPx::Parser -> TAP::Parser?

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
Hi all, Per an email from Schwern, he does not object to renaming TAPx::Parser to TAP::Parser. Hence, we have an official 'blessing' from him for claiming this namespace. Does anyone have any thoughts/objections to this? I realize that enough people are using TAPx::Parser that it might be a tin

TAPx::Parser -> TAP::Parser?

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
(Resent from the address I've actually subscribed from!) Hi all, Per an email from Schwern, he does not object to renaming TAPx::Parser to TAP::Parser. Hence, we have an official 'blessing' from him for claiming this namespace. Does anyone have any thoughts/objections to this? I realize that e

Re: Custom extensions to META.yml

2007-03-05 Thread David Golden
On 3/5/07, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Instead of having to disable (or enable) CC for every new tool, >> > I'd want a setting that new tools could look at without me having >> > to change the META.yml in all of my distributions then >> > re-uploading them all. ... >I'm just sayi

Re: per-author META.yml

2007-03-05 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from Ricardo SIGNES # on Monday 05 March 2007 10:09 am: >* brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-04T12:09:26] > >> ... without me having to >> change the META.yml in all of my distributions then re-uploading >> them all. > >So, for some subset of META.yml settings, you could consult the > mod

Re: Custom extensions to META.yml

2007-03-05 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from brian d foy # on Monday 05 March 2007 10:41 am: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ricardo > >SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-04T12:09:26] >> >> > I'm not talking about the particular field name, but the idea that >> > I'd want to say in META.ym

Re: --squeal-like-a-pig option

2007-03-05 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from Ovid # on Monday 05 March 2007 05:38 am: >I have no idea what to name that switch, though, as 'warnings' is >already taken to enable warnings in the programs.  '--tap-warnings' is >probably a decent choice even though I prefer '--squeal-like-a-pig'. --have-a-good-talking-to --tsk --E

Re: customizing test behavior/strictures

2007-03-05 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from Ovid # on Monday 05 March 2007 06:26 am: >--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm very wary of potentially hidden files causing changes to whether >> my tests pass or not. "Gee, these tests pass for me, but not for >> you..." caused by a hidden .rc file. :-( Sure, but that might

Re: Custom extensions to META.yml

2007-03-05 Thread brian d foy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-04T12:09:26] > > I'm not talking about the particular field name, but the idea that I'd > > want to say in META.yml "Don't send me mail", or whatever setting I > > want. > > > >

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Eric Hacker
On 3/5/07, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good point. How about, if an .rc file is used, the output of runtests is something like: shared_cp $ runtests -lrq Using .rc file: /home/ovid/.runtestsrc t/cp_demo_lib.ok t/cp_lib..ok t/db_conne

Re: Custom extensions to META.yml

2007-03-05 Thread Ricardo SIGNES
* brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-04T12:09:26] > I'm not talking about the particular field name, but the idea that I'd > want to say in META.yml "Don't send me mail", or whatever setting I > want. > > Instead of having to disable (or enable) CC for every new tool, I'd > want a setting th

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
--- Eric Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd try to use something like YAML for as much of the output as > practical, especially the configuration information or warnings. Perl > is great at parsing, but why make it difficult. Especially for the > person I'll worship who'll write the Eclipse

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Ovid wrote: > > > Sounds reasonable. I'm planning on doing a new dev release tonight > > (pretty much what's in Subversion right now), so it won't be in > there > > right away, but I do like this idea. > > I'm very wary

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Andy Lester
On Mar 5, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Ovid wrote: Sounds reasonable. I'm planning on doing a new dev release tonight (pretty much what's in Subversion right now), so it won't be in there right away, but I do like this idea. I'm very wary of potentially hidden files causing changes to whether my test

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
--- Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be nice if the warnings could be made more granular. For > example I like trailing plans, but non-TAP output might be an issue. > > Maybe an .*rc file of some kind ala Perl::Critic? Sounds reasonable. I'm planning on doing a new dev rel

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Andy Lester
Given all of this chat, what would folks think about an optional switch to 'runtests' (the TAPx::Parser equivalent to 'prove'), which would warn users about which test programs are being run without a plan? Rather than a warning, I'd rather have a failure. I've considered putting this in Te

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Eric Hacker
Given all of this chat, what would folks think about an optional switch to 'runtests' (the TAPx::Parser equivalent to 'prove'), which would warn users about which test programs are being run without a plan? Brilliant idea. In functional testing, there are situations where one doesn't know how m

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Adrian Howard
On 5 Mar 2007, at 13:38, Ovid wrote: --- Eric Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Given all of this chat, what would folks think about an optional switch to 'runtests' (the TAPx::Parser equivalent to 'prove'), which would warn users about which test programs are being run without a plan? T

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
--- Eric Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Given all of this chat, what would folks think about an optional > switch > > to 'runtests' (the TAPx::Parser equivalent to 'prove'), which would > > warn users about which test programs are being run without a plan? That should have read 'run with

Re: a safer way to use no_plan?

2007-03-05 Thread Adam Kennedy
Dominique Quatravaux wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andy Lester wrote: Good Lord do I get frustrated at the handwringing over test counting. Look, it's simple. You write your tests. You run it through prove. You see how many tests it reports. You add it at the top of

Re: Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
--- Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given the recent talks about test plans, here's what I have in > .vim/plugin/ToggleTestPlan.vim: *snip* Given all of this chat, what would folks think about an optional switch to 'runtests' (the TAPx::Parser equivalent to 'prove'), which would warn users abo

Managing Test Plans with Vim

2007-03-05 Thread Ovid
Given the recent talks about test plans, here's what I have in .vim/plugin/ToggleTestPlan.vim: if exists( "toggle_test_plan" ) finish endif let toggle_test_plan = 1 map tp :call ToggleTestPlan() function ToggleTestPlan() call SavePosition() let curr_li