# from Ovid
# on Tuesday 30 June 2009 10:17:
>So I was thinking about a rewritten test interface which allows
> something like this (this code actually works, by the way):
I only skimmed the thread, but it doesn't look like anyone mentioned
TestML.
http://testml.org/
Yes, there's a lot to be
Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> This is a quick release to sync with perl so 5.10.1 can release with a stable
>> version number. It does NOT include the subtest() code in 0.89_01 (don't
>> worry, it'll be back).
>
> The attached patch does two t
This is a quick release to sync with perl so 5.10.1 can release with a stable
version number. It does NOT include the subtest() code in 0.89_01 (don't
worry, it'll be back).
http://github.com/schwern/test-more/tree/v0.90
0.90 Thu Jul 2 13:18:25 PDT 2009
Docs
* Finally added a note abo
Ovid wrote:
> Also, I think playing around with more fluent interfaces is a good idea.
> If my interface is great, why not? If it's bad, what would people *love*
> to see in a test interface which allows them to naturally write tests?
FWIW I don't see anything about either Ovid's or David's ideas
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> * Ovid [2009-06-30T10:21:24]
>> The latest developer release of Test::More allows subtests. Subtests are
>> great in that they solve a lot of problems in advanced Perl testing, but they
>> have required a change in Test::Builder. Previously you could do stuff like
>> this:
Ovid wrote:
> (Helps if I send this from a subscribed address):
>
> From http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/39193
>
> The latest developer release of Test::More allows subtests. Subtests are great
> in that they solve a lot of problems in advanced Perl testing, but they have
> required a change in
* David Golden [2009-06-30T14:46:47]
> Well, if you're doing interface design, one of the first things that
> comes to mind is that the name of the test should come first, not
> last.
...I basically liked everything you had to say here:
> test "label goes here" => is( $have, $want ) => diag
On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
2009/7/2 Paul Fenwick :
Since the line in question is using diag(), it already does have a #
prepended to it. AFAIK most TAP parses pass that through to the
user by
default.
diag() writes to STDERR by default, so it's noisy and clutt
On Monday 29 June 2009 23:03:00 Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Hi!
>
> See over there: http://use.perl.org/~domm/journal/39189
Hi Thomas!
Is this the reason that CPANTS was out-of-date for a long time? It seemed
better yesterday, though.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
2009/7/2 Paul Fenwick :
> Since the line in question is using diag(), it already does have a #
> prepended to it. AFAIK most TAP parses pass that through to the user by
> default.
diag() writes to STDERR by default, so it's noisy and clutters output. Core
tests use C instead for this reason.
Is
- Original Message
> From: Michael Peters
>
> > use Test::Fluent 'no_plan';
> >
> > my ( $have, $want ) = ( 1, 1 );
> > have $have, want $want, reason 'Some test name';
> > have [ 3, 4 ], want [ 4, 5 ], reason 'cuz I said so'; # fails
> > true 3, reason '3 had be
11 matches
Mail list logo
