On 28 Mar 2007, at 01:46, Kirrily Robert wrote:
[snip]
Any suggestions for how to work around this? All I've got so far
is the
idea of splitting out the web tests into another directory, and
treating
them as "functional tests" that developers would typically run less
often than the unit tes
Kirrily Robert wrote:
> We've got a situation where we have a suite of tests for a web app. It
> starts of testing the lib/ and whatnot, but eventually gets to the point
> where it uses Test::WWW::Mechanize to go fetch stuff from the
> developer's sandbox website and do a sanity check on the web a
We've got a situation where we have a suite of tests for a web app. It
starts of testing the lib/ and whatnot, but eventually gets to the point
where it uses Test::WWW::Mechanize to go fetch stuff from the
developer's sandbox website and do a sanity check on the web application
itself.
The pro
Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2007, at 18:16, Gary Hawkins wrote:
>> What about diag() output.
>
> It goes to STDERR and is therefore not really part of TAP. Many uses of
> diag are expected to be replaced by the YAML based mechanism.
To expand on that, the plan is to transition test module a
On 27 Mar 2007, at 18:16, Gary Hawkins wrote:
What about diag() output.
It goes to STDERR and is therefore not really part of TAP. Many uses
of diag are expected to be replaced by the YAML based mechanism.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
What about diag() output.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Armstrong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:15 AM
To: Geoffrey Young
Cc: perl-qa@perl.org
Subject: Re: YAML?
On 19 Mar 2007, at 12:51, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> it's really hard to wade through the flurry of act
