https://github.com/schwern/test-more/wiki/Subtest-Design
I've decided on a complete design for subtests and written it up, mostly to
get it out of my head before I forget it. :-) Please let me know what you
think. Here's a summary...
In short, from a Test::Builder point of view, subtests do tw
Leon,
> Hmmm. Wait status 139 means it had a segfault and coredumped.
That's probably because it ran out of memory, I'm guessing.
-- Buddy
David,
>> I guess I'm not sure what to do here. What do other folks advise?
>
> Contact the individual testers, I guess.
I'm not sure what to say though ... "hey, dude, your automated testing
is being rude to my tests, so go fix that?" I mean, I wouldn't put it
that way, obviously, but i can't
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Buddy Burden wrote:
> Okay, this is addressing the "signal 9" ones. And I'm pursuing the
> "out of memory" ones. Does anyone have any ideas about the "no plan
> in output" ones? Remembering that this is using the latest versions
> of Test::More and Test::Harness?
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:48:43AM -0700, Buddy Burden wrote:
> David,
> >> Well, that's probably the most common error ... surely there can't be
> >> _that_ many CPAN Testers folks hanging around actually _watching_ the
> >> tests run and killing them when they take too long.
> > No, but there are
David,
>> Well, that's probably the most common error ... surely there can't be
>> _that_ many CPAN Testers folks hanging around actually _watching_ the
>> tests run and killing them when they take too long.
>
> No, but there are testers who have watchdog processes to kill off
> anything that runs
Many of you will by now, I hope, be aware that the Google Code-in 2011
will be starting shortly and TPF would like to take part. If you don't
know about this, please read
http://blogs.perl.org/users/paul_johnson/2011/10/more-about-gci-2011.html
We've already had a great response from people on th
Hiya,
On 30 Oct 2011, at 19:23, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
>> * How would a no_plan subtest merge into a planned stream?
>
> Just fine, thanks. It would require no work at all. Without the TAP
> formatting, a no_plan subtest is equivalent to just running some tests.
What I was thinking of
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 06:17:37PM -0700, Buddy Burden wrote:
> Leon,
> >>> *** Signal 9
> > That one is obvious, it has been SIGKILLed. Probably the tester
> > thought the tests were hanging.
> Well, that's probably the most common error ... surely there can't be
> _that_ many CPAN Testers folks h
