* Michael G Schwern [2009-02-20 23:35]:
> And we come back to the beginning: it's all going to be ad hoc
> anyway until TAP formalizes it. Fine for eyeballing. If someone
> wants to scrape the information out they can do it from the
> description (with the usual caveats about scraping).
What I am
On Feb 20, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
Yeah, I think that's reasonable - although it would be nice at some
point to do something about the option proliferation that seems to
afflict us. That's not your fault of course :)
Thanks.
You you should probably subscribe to
http://ww
On Feb 20, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
Yeah, I think that's reasonable - although it would be nice at some
point to do something about the option proliferation that seems to
afflict us. That's not your fault of course :)
Thanks.
You you should probably subscribe to
http://w
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Michael G Schwern [2009-02-19 21:15]:
>> As TAP has no formal means to express that, and I'm not waiting
>> for a TAP extension, any TAP reader will need extra logic to
>> figure that out. So worrying about that seems moot.
>
> If it takes a lot longer and TB offers
Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:52, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> RENUMBER
>>
>> Won't that fuck up existing users of the library?
>
> Yeah, I was making a BASIC joke :)
A very basic joke.
--
44. I am not the atheist chaplain
Gabor Szabo writes:
> For this it is enough to run
>
> system "path/to/utitlity < in.txt > out.txt 2> err.txt"
>
> and then compare them to the expected.out and expected.err
Not what you're asking for, but when I see testing stdout and stderr
from child processes, I cannot resist ...
use Tes
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
I wonder if there are modules out there that already do this?
I could not find any that would fit my needs.
Test::Output?
http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Test::Output
If it doesn't capture output from other programs, have a look at
Capture::
Lately I need to test many small utilities written in various languages.
For the most simple cases I just need to run the utilities with a set of
input
and check if the output is the same as expected.
For this it is enough to run
system "path/to/utitlity < in.txt > out.txt 2> err.txt"
and then
On 20 Feb 2009, at 20:25, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Well, almost. I see which test failed, which is a big help, but not
any diagnostics. So I think I'll add a `diagnostics` parameter. Make
sense?
Yeah, I think that's reasonable - although it would be nice at some
point to do something about
On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:52, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
RENUMBER
Won't that fuck up existing users of the library?
Yeah, I was making a BASIC joke :)
The description for verbose should really
On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:52, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
RENUMBER
Won't that fuck up existing users of the library?
Yeah, I was making a BASIC joke :)
The description for verbose should really be "show the raw TAP
stream".
Patches / commits w
On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
RENUMBER
Won't that fuck up existing users of the library?
The description for verbose should really be "show the raw TAP
stream".
Patches / commits welcome - but I'm not going to have time to do
anything more than review said patches /
- Original Message
> From: Ovid
> > Remember Ovid and I going at it like Godzilla and Rodan over merging STDOUT
> > and STDERR when TH3 was being put together?
>
> Yup. This has bitten me today at work. Badly :(
>
> All the more reason why we need TB2 to be done today :)
You know,
* Michael G Schwern [2009-02-19 21:15]:
> As TAP has no formal means to express that, and I'm not waiting
> for a TAP extension, any TAP reader will need extra logic to
> figure that out. So worrying about that seems moot.
If it takes a lot longer and TB offers subplans in the meantime,
people wi
On 19 Feb 2009, at 21:16, Michael G Schwern wrote:
This makes me think that -1 should actually be "normal", from what
Schwern has said, and 0 should include the failures and diagnostics
and
messages and whatnot (# stuff), as Andy seems to have expected in the
past. But I can't really figure ou
On 19 Feb 2009, at 20:01, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Andy Armstrong wrote:
On 18 Feb 2009, at 22:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The thing which most takes advantage of this is TODO tests. They
send
their
failure diagnostics to STDOUT so the user is not spammed with
passing
test
information.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> I agree partly (it can look, but should not add any
> dependencies), but I'm very unlikely to find some time to fix this in
> the next weeks (http://use.perl.org/~domm/journal/38260).
Understood. :-)
> But of course, patches welcome (eg
17 matches
Mail list logo
