On Jun 24, 2009, at 9:59 PM, David Golden wrote:
As long as we're bike-shedding, a simplification:
subtest {
plan "sanity check" => 3;
pass for 1 .. 3;
}
Anything other than "no_plan" or "skip_all" is taken as if "tests".
I thought of that and dismissed it, but seeing it in print…get
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:08 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> The how about:
>
> subtest {
> plan tests => 3,
> for => 'my sanity';
> pass; pass; pass;
> }
>
As long as we're bike-shedding, a simplification:
subtest {
plan "sanity check" => 3;
pass for 1
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:32 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
subtest {
name 'text';
pass;
};
That's interesting, though I don't think its worthwhile as the name
is serving
a dual purpose as mentioned above. It's not just the name of the
subtest but
also explaining what the su
Paul Johnson wrote:
> One question though. Why
>
> subtest "text", sub {};
>
> rather than
>
> subtest {}, "text";
>
> ?
>
> The latter seems more consistent as well as removing a rather annoying bit of
> syntax. Were you worried that "text" might get lost at the end of the sub?
Not
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:07:55PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> is_passing()
>
>
> As a side effect of this work, there is finally a way to tell if a test is
> currently passing. Test::Builder->is_passing(). Its really "have I failed
> yet", but if you don't think about it too
- Original Message
> From: Paul Johnson
>
> One question though. Why
>
> subtest "text", sub {};
>
> rather than
>
> subtest {}, "text";
>
> ?
>
> The latter seems more consistent as well as removing a rather annoying bit of
> syntax. Were you worried that "text" might ge
