- Original Message
From: Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've updated it with that text :)
Thanks! I still feel that my copy was awkward, so if you have a better way of
writing it, that's fine.
In other news, still working on my presentation.
On 21 Jul 2007, at 12:21, Ovid wrote:
- Improved diagnostics
I know that's what we've been calling them - but I wonder if that's
not underselling them a bit. We're not limited to diagnostic
information there - we can have all sorts of meta about the test run,
use them to relate
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-BinaryData/lib/Test/BinaryData.pm
I won't rehash the whole documentation here, but the gist is that I really hate
getting test reports that say:
not ok 1
# Failed test in demo.t at line 8.
# got: 'foo
# bar
# '
# expected: 'foo
#
Ovid wrote:
- GUIs (anyone want to fix the GTK GUI?)
You could mention the Smolder (shameless plug). It's sort of a gui. Not to run
the tests but to share the results of a run. And the current 1.1 uses
TAP::Parser.
--
Michael Peters
Developer
Plus Three, LP
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-BinaryData/lib/Test/BinaryData.pm
Did you know that Test::LongString (despite the name) can handle binary
information too? Probably not as detailed as your diagnostics, but it works
fairly well for seeing the differences in binary stuff.
* Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-21T09:07:42]
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-BinaryData/lib/Test/BinaryData.pm
Did you know that Test::LongString (despite the name) can handle binary
information too? Probably not as detailed as your diagnostics, but it
