Chris Dolan wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:34 PM, nadim khemir wrote:
>> Because a TODO means that it is not done not: it might happend to be
>> done but
>> I'm not really sure, maybe I get lucky.
>>
>> Either one removes the TODO and all is fine. Or it might just be a
>> side effect
>> that you ha
On Dec 2, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
Another downside of using TODO like this is that when the external
module is fixed, you have to release a new version of your module
with
the TODOs removed. These tests will start failing for anyone who
upgrades your mod
On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:34 PM, nadim khemir wrote:
Because a TODO means that it is not done not: it might happend to
be done but
I'm not really sure, maybe I get lucky.
Either one removes the TODO and all is fine. Or it might just be a
side effect
that you haven't planned that makes the test
Fergal Daly wrote:
>> As long as you're releasing a new version, why would you not upgrade your
>> module's dependency to use the version that works?
>
> Your module either is or isn't usable with version X of Foo.
>
> If it is usable then you would not change your dependency before or
> after the
If you reply to this, please make sure you reply to the 2 cases
involving the dog, this is my main objection to using TODO tests in
this manner.
On 02/12/2007, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergal Daly wrote:
> > One of the supposed benefits of using TODO is that you will notice
>
Fergal Daly wrote:
> One of the supposed benefits of using TODO is that you will notice
> when the external module has been fixed. That's reasonable but I don't
> see a need to inflict the confusion of unexpectedly passing tests on
> all your users to achieve this.
Maybe we should just change the
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-qa@perl.org/msg06865.html
has the previous round on this topic. My memory is hazy but my view
was that people are using TODO in strange ways and making this a
failure would break that. The strange way I remember (and has been
brought up again by Chris Dolan) is rel
# from Paul Johnson
>How is "didn't do what I expected" *ever* any sort of success?
It *did* do what the *test* expected ("ok(1)"). Yes, the TODO expected
it to fail, but if it is passing, you have "more than success".
It might need attention, but "failure" is a subset of "needs attention"
or
# from nadim khemir
# on Sunday 02 December 2007 11:34:
>> How is "extra credit" *ever* any sort of failure?
>
>Because a TODO means that it is not done not: it might happend to be
> done but I'm not really sure, maybe I get lucky.
No, the latter is almost exactly what "todo" means. More precis
On Sunday 02 December 2007 18:51, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> # from Ovid
>
> # on Sunday 02 December 2007 07:47:
> >--- nadim khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The subject says it all. IE:
>
> ...
>
> >> t/20_policies.t 152 578 583
> >
> >It just means "you need to investigate th
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:51:49AM -0800, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> How is "extra credit" *ever* any sort of failure?
How is "didn't do what I expected" *ever* any sort of success?
Just playing devil's advocate here really, but experience has taught me
to be rather conservative when it comes to test
On Dec 2, 2007, at 9:37 AM, nadim khemir wrote:
The subject says it all. IE:
All tests successful (2 subtests UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 7 tests
skipped.
Passed TODO Stat Wstat TODOs Pass List of Passed
--
-
t/2
# from Ovid
# on Sunday 02 December 2007 07:47:
>--- nadim khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The subject says it all. IE:
...
>> t/20_policies.t 152 578 583
>
>It just means "you need to investigate this further". Personally, I
>would like to see it optionally mean failure,.
--- Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Side note: those features I really want control over in
> Test::Harness
> are the plan() and ok() methods. There's no clean way for me to do
> that. Just look at the constructor:
>
> my $Test = Test::Builder->new;
> sub new {
> my($class) = shift
On Sunday 02 December 2007 16:47, Ovid wrote:
> --- nadim khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The subject says it all. IE:
> >
> > All tests successful (2 subtests UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 7 tests
> > skipped.
> > Passed TODO Stat Wstat TODOs Pass List of Passed
>
> -
--- nadim khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The subject says it all. IE:
>
> All tests successful (2 subtests UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 7 tests
> skipped.
> Passed TODO Stat Wstat TODOs Pass List of Passed
>
---
> t/20_poli
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is easier to do with Test::Builder because custom features meant
> custom
> functions. Custom functions avoid functionality overlap and users
> write code
> specifically for them. Test::Harness and prove have no such luxury.
Right, let's t
The subject says it all. IE:
All tests successful (2 subtests UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 7 tests skipped.
Passed TODO Stat Wstat TODOs Pass List of Passed
---
t/20_policies.t 152 578 583
(nice report
18 matches
Mail list logo
