Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread chromatic
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 05:57 PM, Michael G wrote: > If you don't want global warnings, explicitly turn them off with BEGIN { $^W = > 0 }. I thought the argument that test modules should set global policy unilaterally died out when I made Test::MockObject *not* enable UNIVERSAL::isa

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.11.10 4:59 PM, Buddy Burden wrote: chromatic/Merjin, Not "use warnings" but the -w command line flag -- the non-lexical, warnings- on-everywhere one. no change whatsoever. I've now added -w to all #! lines in the t files Does that do anything? I didn't think prove respected the sh

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread Buddy Burden
chromatic/Merjin, >> Not "use warnings" but the -w command line flag -- the non-lexical, warnings- >> on-everywhere one. > no change whatsoever. I've now added -w to all #! lines in the t files Does that do anything? I didn't think prove respected the shebang line. Anyway, I thought the -w to

Differences between "make test" and "prove" (was Re: TAP - Test::More - fork)

2011-11-10 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.11.10 7:15 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: Yes, there indeed is a core (gdb) where #0 0xc0258c70:0 in free+0x1d0 () from /usr/lib/hpux64/libc.so.1 #1 0x4017f7e0:0 in Perl_safesysfree () at util.c:262 #2 0x400d0ab0:0 in perl_destruct () at perl.c:871 #3 0x400

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:23:07 -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 08:14 AM, H Brand wrote: > > > no change whatsoever. I've now added -w to all #! lines in the t files > > That's good, that Test::Harness "helpfully" adding magic global hidden > command > line options to

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread chromatic
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 08:14 AM, H Brand wrote: > no change whatsoever. I've now added -w to all #! lines in the t files That's good, that Test::Harness "helpfully" adding magic global hidden command line options to all invocations isn't the problem here. It's bad that the problem is

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:11:14 -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 08:07 AM, H Brand wrote: > > > All my test files (in this project) have "use warnings;" (and of > > course "use strict;") > > Not "use warnings" but the -w command line flag -- the non-lexical, warnings- >

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread chromatic
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 08:07 AM, H Brand wrote: > All my test files (in this project) have "use warnings;" (and of > course "use strict;") Not "use warnings" but the -w command line flag -- the non-lexical, warnings- on-everywhere one. -- c

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:10:10 +0100, Leon Timmermans wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > Test Summary Report > > --- > > t/20-uni-basic.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 366 Failed: 0) > >  Non-zero wait status: 139 > > t/21-uni-regex.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 18

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:56:44 -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 07:15 AM, H Brand wrote: > > > I however do not understand why prove seems to be safe, but make test > > is not > > Do your test files use -w? If not, what happens if you add it and run them > with > prov

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread chromatic
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 07:15 AM, H Brand wrote: > I however do not understand why prove seems to be safe, but make test > is not Do your test files use -w? If not, what happens if you add it and run them with prove? This *should* make no difference, but I have a suspicion. -- c

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:10:10 +0100, Leon Timmermans wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > Test Summary Report > > --- > > t/20-uni-basic.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 366 Failed: 0) > >  Non-zero wait status: 139 > > t/21-uni-regex.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 18

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:10:10 +0100, Leon Timmermans wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > Test Summary Report > > --- > > t/20-uni-basic.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 366 Failed: 0) > >  Non-zero wait status: 139 > > t/21-uni-regex.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 18

Re: TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread Leon Timmermans
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > Test Summary Report > --- > t/20-uni-basic.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 366 Failed: 0) >  Non-zero wait status: 139 > t/21-uni-regex.t   (Wstat: 139 Tests: 18 Failed: 0) >  Non-zero wait status: 139 > Files=19, Tests=3658, 35 wallc

TAP - Test::More - fork

2011-11-10 Thread H.Merijn Brand
I have a (database) test suite that executes a shell script in the background to create a database lock that I can check on, like --8<--- use Test::More; : ok (1, "-- SELECT WITH WARNINGS"); ok ($dbh->disconnect, "disconnect"); my $pid; unless ($pid = fork ()) { qx{echo "xlock xx; !sleep 5;"