Ovid writes:
> If it's the former, we need structured diagnostics in TAP to be
> formalised and implemented.
Which we already have. It does not need to be formalised further; it's
all there. I use TAP v13 with embedded yaml and lots of diagnostics
information in there.
If I want to evaluate it I
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Joe McMahon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>> I could write this:
>>
>> $mech->content_like(qr{regex}) or diag $mech->content;
>>
>> but then I get all the content in the TAP stream making it quite unreadable.
> Yep. That's why we impl
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Ovid wrote:
> --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>
>> From: Gabor Szabo
>
>> Maybe I need something like this:
>>
>> $mech->content_like(qr{regex}) or do {
>> my $filename = 'some_filename';
>> if (open my $fh, '>', $filename) {
>> print $fh $
--- On Mon, 5/4/10, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> From: Gabor Szabo
> Maybe I need something like this:
>
> $mech->content_like(qr{regex}) or do {
> my $filename = 'some_filename';
> if (open my $fh, '>', $filename) {
> print $fh $mech->content;
> diag "File: $filename";
> }
Hi,
when I am writing a test script for a perl module or even
an application I am writing, the output I get from TAP seems enough.
When I write a test for an application where the author is someone
else and sometime the person running the test is a 3rd one, in those
case we usually need more detai
