Fergal Daly wrote:
>> #!perl
>>
>> use Test::More tests=>1;
>> use Test::Builder::Tester;
>>
>> test_out('not ok 1 - use Fcntl;');
>> test_fail(+1);
>> use_ok 'Fcntl', 'Pie';
>> test_test( "Fails for bad export");
>> __END__
>>
>
> alternatively
>
> use Test::Tester;
> use Test::M
2008/9/19 brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicholas Clark
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But it seems that this bug is only fixed as a side effect of that change, and
>> it's not actually tested for. What's the best way to write a test that fits
>> within the cu
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 03:35:36PM -0500, brian d foy wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicholas Clark
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But it seems that this bug is only fixed as a side effect of that change,
> > and
> > it's not actually tested for. What's the best way to write a test
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicholas Clark
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it seems that this bug is only fixed as a side effect of that change, and
> it's not actually tested for. What's the best way to write a test that fits
> within the current frameworks to prevent any regression?
> It's
On Sep 18, 2008, at 16:12, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Howdy,
I've released a new version of pgTAP, 0.10. Grab it here:
http://pgfoundry.org/frs/?group_id=1000389
Changes mainly include lots of new functions for testing a schema
(has_table(), has_view(), has_col(), has_pk(), has_fk(),
col_is
With Test::Builder 0.80
$ perl -c ~/test/bang.t
/home/netbanx/test/bang.t syntax OK
$ cat ~/test/bang.t
#!perl
use Test::More tests=>1;
BEGIN {use_ok 'Fcntl', 'Pie'};
__END__
$ perl -c ~/test/bang.t
/home/netbanx/test/bang.t syntax OK
$ HARNESS_ACTIVE=1 perl -c ~/test/bang.t
Can't use an un
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the basics of "App::Prove::History" working (not yet releasable), and
> it's time to ask what people want in it. Should I just store the results of
> individual test programs or also the results of individual tests? TAP
>
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-19T05:24:40]
>
> I'd lean towards epoch for easier comparison on SQLite.
I tend to use epoch in SQLite, too, but it's worth nothing that iso8601 is much
easier for humans, and SQLite can compare either one pretty well, as 8601
strings are sortable. T
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the basics of "App::Prove::History" working (not yet releasable), and
> it's time to ask what people want in it. Should I just store the results of
> individual test programs or also the results of individual tests? TAP
>
On 19 Sep 2008, at 10:21, Ovid wrote:
I have the basics of "App::Prove::History" working (not yet
releasable), and it's time to ask what people want in it. Should I
just store the results of individual test programs or also the
results of individual tests? TAP streams? Something else entire
I have the basics of "App::Prove::History" working (not yet releasable), and
it's time to ask what people want in it. Should I just store the results of
individual test programs or also the results of individual tests? TAP streams?
Something else entirely?
I intend to store times in this form
11 matches
Mail list logo
