There are two usual rebuttals.
the third being "just add it and let me decide"
:)
--Geoff
On 12 Jan 2008, at 01:32, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
So, Perl folks: if you can do it, a ustack helper is the way to
go. It's
brutal, but the payoff is substantial, as it will be much easier to
connect
misbehaving Perl to the symptoms of that misbehavior elsewhere in the
system. If you're inter
On 12/01/2008, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --
> 184. When operating a military vehicle I may *not* attempt something
> "I saw in a cartoon".
> -- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
>http://skippyslist.com/?page_id=3
That was on
Ovid wrote:
> I've posted a trimmed down version of the custom 'Test::More' we use
> here:
>
> http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/35363
>
> I can't recall who was asking about this, but you can now do this:
>
> use Our::Test::More 'no_plan', 'fail';
>
> If 'fail' is included in the import li
Since many people seem to like and want the features in my custom
Test::More programs (http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/35363), I think
a custom module should be on the CPAN. This module should incorporate
both the tests people most often use and the features they really want
supported but aren't
On Friday 11 January 2008 14:19:52 Ovid wrote:
> So imagine you have a Web spider with 1000 tests and it fails at the
> third test. If the behavior is in the harness, it stops processing
> results but the test program keeps running unless you deliberately try
> to kill the process. I think it's
On 11 Jan 2008, at 22:19, Ovid wrote:
HARNESS_SKIP_ON_FAIL => Stop the failing test program on first
failure
Remember that neither of those can really stop the test program from
running. The first could halt *subsequent* test programs from running
and the second could merely discard subsequent
--- Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HARNESS_BAIL_ON_FAIL => Stop the whole run on the first failure
>
> And perhaps for completeness:
>
> HARNESS_SKIP_ON_FAIL => Stop the failing test program on first
> failure
Remember that neither of those can really stop the test program from
run
As of patch 32953 dtrace support is in bleadperl (5.11.0). The probes
are based on Alan Burlinson's original blog post on the subject:
http://blogs.sun.com/alanbur/date/20050909
By guarding the probes with PERL_SUB_*_ENABLED the performance hit is
unmeasurable.
All the necessary bits a
On 11 Jan 2008, at 18:32, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
And I don't want to hack Test::More - I want this as a new feature in
the "real" Test::Builder, so anything build on Test::Builder gets
this behavior.
Can it just be in the harness?
I'd have thought so.
HARNESS_BAIL_ON_FAIL => Stop the whole r
# from Matisse Enzer
# on Friday 11 January 2008 10:26:
>And I don't want to hack Test::More - I want this as a new feature in
> the "real" Test::Builder, so anything build on Test::Builder gets
> this behavior.
Can it just be in the harness?
--Eric
--
To a database person, every nail looks l
On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Ovid wrote:
--- Matisse Enzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Ovid wrote:
Well, your feature is slightly different in that it calls BAIL_OUT
on
failure and halts the entire test suite.
That's a behavior I have wanted - for large tes
--- Matisse Enzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Ovid wrote:
> >
> > Well, your feature is slightly different in that it calls BAIL_OUT
> on
> > failure and halts the entire test suite.
>
> That's a behavior I have wanted - for large test suites being used
> during
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Ovid wrote:
Well, your feature is slightly different in that it calls BAIL_OUT on
failure and halts the entire test suite.
That's a behavior I have wanted - for large test suites being used
during development for example. I just want to stop the whole test run
--- Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we've discussed this a few times on this list, and I even submitted a
>
> patch to make it so:
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-qa@perl.org/msg08973.html
>
> your interface is very nice, but I think I'd also like to preserve
> the
> abilit
Ovid wrote:
I've posted a trimmed down version of the custom 'Test::More' we use
here:
http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/35363
I can't recall who was asking about this, but you can now do this:
use Our::Test::More 'no_plan', 'fail';
If 'fail' is included in the import list, the test pro
I've posted a trimmed down version of the custom 'Test::More' we use
here:
http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/35363
I can't recall who was asking about this, but you can now do this:
use Our::Test::More 'no_plan', 'fail';
If 'fail' is included in the import list, the test program will die
im
17 matches
Mail list logo
