Ovid wrote:
--- Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Aug 2007, at 06:21, Andy Lester wrote:
All the @INC handling, all the determining of how to run each .t
file, all the mucking with PERL5LIB, etc etc etc. I just don't
want to deal with it if T::H 3.0 is coming soon.
Thoughts?
Matisse Enzer wrote:
On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:13 PM, Chris Dolan wrote:
OK, I see. Perhaps I was distracted from your main point by mention
of cyclomatic complexity, which has a rather specific definition.
Mea culpa.
In the next release I will change the documentation for
Chris Dolan wrote:
Here are the points I think are important, gleaned from people's recent
comments:
* Should have two forms: a general one and a specific one (like
AUTHOR_TEST and AUTHOR_TEST_CDOLAN)
* Should start with PERL_
* Should contain TEST or TESTING
* Should not be too long, so
Ovid wrote:
Last week I was at a testing conference with Acme and he came up with the idea
of installing tests. He looked into hacking Module::Build and
ExtUtils::MakeMaker. He also considered hacking CPAN.pm and CPANPLUS.pm.
While I don't know if he plans to continue working on this idea,
Steffen Mueller wrote:
Hi domm, hi perl.qa,
we had a discussion about distributions with broken versions of
Module::Install. Using Module::CPANTS::Kwalitee::* as models I wrote a
simple plugin that calculates a Kwalitee metric uses_broken_installer.
- If the distribution doesn't use
Ovid wrote:
Hi all,
Just a quick question, mainly aimed at Schwern since he's most familiar with
TAP::Harness, though others with thoughts should definitely chime in.
To handle streams, I am thinking of this:
my $parser = TAPx::Parser-new;
while ( defined ( my $chunk = $tap_stream-next )
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Unlike what others said, core perl shouldn't be the vehicle for
this, most likely, given the more stringent support and backwards
compatibility. We want to be able to change the composition of
PerlPlus overtime, and once things go into core, they're pretty stuck.
I
David Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 05:56, Fergal Daly wrote:
That's funny, it looks like I did put some code in to disable the END
block if it's required rather than used. Turns out I did this to
make MakeMaker happy, so MakeMaker does actually do a full require,
Well, IIRC, both
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
got still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to received?
returned?
Michael G Schwern wrote:
The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
file:foo.t
line:45
description: omg t3h sooper test!!1!
got:
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:39:06 -0500, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 7:47 PM, David Golden wrote:
Some potential options:
(a) Add directory as a synonym to the spec and add dir as
something that CPAN sites recognize.
(b) Change
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On 7/5/06, Jonathan T. Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing about using MediaWiki is that it's not written in Perl. Not
that PHP is bad (ok, yes it is bad...), but doesn't it send some sort of
negative message when Perl QA doesn't use a Perl-based Wiki?
Do I
Andy Lester wrote:
Tomorrow, Adam Kennedy and I (and Schwern?) will be banging on
Test::Harness.
Finalize Test::Harness::Straps.
Make it possible to programatically run tests and to capture output. Eg.
Module::Build has need to run tests, displaying output as normal, but to
also capture
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Last time I checked the core has 6 TESTS UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED
What's the expected number of unexpected successes?
Can it be made to be zero, even though we're testing the test modules?
If so, I think that that would be useful, as it would mean that any (real)
TODO test
demerphq wrote:
On 4/4/06, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Module::Build wants to go in, but because they use YAML for the data
file, we add Ingy's YAML.pm, who then decides he wants to use Test::Base
for everything he does, so that slips in undernearth, and of course
Test::Base is based
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
demerphq wrote:
Also, there is a tension in the community relating to this issue that
i dont think we will see any resolution of soon.
Many module authors set a design objective of making their modules
dependent only on core modules. This is a comment that I see on a
Adam Kennedy wrote:
There are a number of ways to do this. The most simple is:
use strict;
use warnings;
use File::HomeDir;
my $conf_dir = File::Spec-catdir( File::HomeDir-my_home, '.Foo' );
Not that I wish to be a pedant about this, but only so people keep it in
mind...
This
Matisse Enzer wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Randy W. Sims wrote:
There are a number of ways to do this. The most simple is:
use strict;
use warnings;
use File::HomeDir;
my $conf_dir = File::Spec-catdir( File::HomeDir-my_home, '.Foo' );
use Module::Build;
my $builder = Module::Build-new
Matisse Enzer wrote:
What's the standard (if any) for how to configure a build script to
install specific files (e.g. httpd.conf) in someplace other than the
standard Perl library/script/man locations?
For example, if my distro contains a bunch of .pm files and .pl files,
which go in the
David Golden wrote:
Steve Peters wrote:
The problem was that newer Scalar-List-Utils uses an internal Perl
function that Windows does not see as an exported function. This was
changed with Perl 5.8.8. Once ActiveState releases a Perl 5.8.8, they
should be able to upgrade the version of
Adam Kennedy wrote:
To give you some more data points, imagine the automated testing
additions applied only on Win32. How would you then specify the deps?
#187 on the TODO list for M::B is to implement the dEx[1] (Dependency
EXpression) language for inserting complicated requirements in
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests = 1;
my $Test = Test::More-builder;
my $counter = $Test-current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test-current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has to be set to the number of tests run in the
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests = 1;
my $Test = Test::More-builder;
my $counter = $Test-current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test-current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has
James E Keenan wrote:
Scott Wang wrote:
Hi Chris,
I am still confus.
For example,
On my Linux box, I have a module
/tmp/experiment/lib/module_to_test.pm to be tested, and I have two
Perl unit test scripts /tmp/experiment/tests/test1.pl and
'/tmp/experiment/tests/test2.pl to load the
David Landgren wrote:
I am not going to use Module::Build. I've tried it but I prefer EU::MM,
at least for the time being. I'm all for the concept, but I wanted to do
something really basic with it for a new module a while ago. I forget
the details, but after futzing around for a while I just
Is there a way to make Crequire or Cuse fail without manipulating
@INC or hiding the physical file? Or more generally, how do you test all
branches of constructs like:
if ( eval {require Foo} ) {
useFoo();
} elsif ( eval {require Alternate} ) {
useAlternate();
} else {
fake_it();
}
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 02:13:46PM -0400, Randy W. Sims wrote:
Is there a way to make Crequire or Cuse fail without manipulating
@INC or hiding the physical file? Or more generally, how do you test all
branches of constructs like:
if ( eval {require Foo} ) {
useFoo
Fergal Daly wrote:
There is a genuine problem here though and that's the fact that MakeMaker
and possibly Module::Build don't allow you to specify testing requirements
separately from building requirements and run time requirements but most
people don't ever see it thanks to CPAN.pm.
The
demerphq wrote:
Im so far going with the strategy that my module replaces Test::More
with itself. I decided not to overload any of its behaviour either and
just add an extra method.
I think it would be much more usefull to have your module work with
rather than in place of Test::More. I can't
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:10:08AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
Anything other than 'got' would go some of the way in disambiguating things.
I forget now what the proposed alternatives were.
If I were starting from scratch, I probably would use 'returned' since
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Ryan King finally submitted to me a full patch to add the description to
Test::Builder diagnostic output. Unfortunately I'm not hot on his
formatting, however it has finally kicked my ass into examining the problem.
Just to refresh everyone, this is what the output of
Robert Rothenberg wrote:
I'm all for something like this, though I prefer requires_libraries
instead. (Listing libraries distinct from applications is a grey area,
so best to put them under one term.)
Come to think of it, why not recommends_libraries too?
What is needed is some standard set of
_brian_d_foy wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy W. Sims
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probe::OS - Gather info on the operating system
Probe::Libs
Probe::Progs
Probe::FileSys - maybe incorporate ideas Schwern posted on p5p recently,
Perhaps we can put this under a namespace like Config:: ?
I
Clayton, Nik wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
Ken Williams wrote:
On a related note, we should probably finally make the
prerequisite-specification system treat the requirement level (requires
vs. recommends vs. conflicts) and requirement scope (build vs. test vs.
runtime) as completely orthogonal. Currently there's no such thing as
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
I think there's one really good argument in favor of splitting it out
and one really good argument against.
In favor: if we knew the subset of build_requires that were actually
needed for testing, then it
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:42:50AM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
That's another gripe of mine about M::B and create_makefile_pl.
It puts the requires AND build_requires in the PREREQ_PM in the
Makefile.PL, which I won't want; nor do I think
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 08:32:59PM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Along the lines of converting to Module::Build...it went well until I
started doing tests...things that worked now break, probably do to
how they're now run...
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Is anyone aware of any existing code (aside from YAML) for grocking
META.yml?
I've got an itch. Aside from user side software tests, I'm also somewhat
addicted to developer tests (Test::Strict, Test::Pod, etc) to make sure
I'm not making stupid typo mistakes every
The test file below is pared down from Module::Build. The warning from
Crequire comes up in several tests, not always causing test failures.
The same warning appears if you run MakeMaker as shown in the
Devel::Cover docs--it's not specific to Module::Build.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/projects$
Randy W. Sims wrote:
The test file below is pared down from Module::Build. The warning from
Crequire comes up in several tests, not always causing test failures.
The same warning appears if you run MakeMaker as shown in the
Devel::Cover docs--it's not specific to Module::Build.
[EMAIL
Andy Lester wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 11:33:48AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
plan tests = 14, have( Foo::Wango ), moon_phase eq waning,
etc;
All this means is that all the following conditions have to be true.
HOW those get evaluated is left to the future. We're
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:44:50AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
plan tests = 14, if = have( Foo ) moon_phase eq waning;
The downside here, as Geoff alluded to, is that we don't really want the
short circuiting behaviour of , since evaluating the
James E Keenan wrote:
On my Mac OS X (Darwin), when I install a Perl module from CPAN, it is
installed in or under this directory:
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.4/
Recently I got hankerin' to look at the source code for Devel::Cover. I
would have expected to find it here:
Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
On Sep 20, 2004, at 4:24 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
(As an aside, can anyone recommend an archive of this list with good
search capability? I'm sure there've been more than 4 postings in
the past that should match devel::cover mod_perl)
If your
Tels wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Friday 16 July 2004 08:57, Randy W. Sims wrote:
Gabor Szabo wrote:
I can see from the testers page that Devel::Cover is supposed
to work on Windows.
Is there a ppd distribution of it somewhere so I can install
it on ActivePerl without
Paul Johnson wrote:
I am considering dropping support for Perl 5.6 in Devel::Cover. Whilst
Devel::Cover basically works with Perl 5.6.1 and Perl 5.6.2, there are
many parts which are difficult or impossible to implement, leading to
certain constructs which cannot be covered.
I realise that some
On 2/16/2004 5:25 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On 2/12/2004 9:07 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
How about a model that allows people to volunteer when they can (vs
always). Say you have a server. You would be an author-client. You'd say
I have this software that needs to be tested. The server would
On 2/11/2004 4:24 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The biggest time suck in developing MakeMaker, and to a lesser extent
Test::More, is running the tests. Why? Because they need to be run on
lots of different platforms with lots of different versions of Perl.
Currently, I do this by hand. And we
On 2/10/2004 10:41 AM, PerlDiscuss - Perl Newsgroups and mailing lists
wrote:
Shouldn't it be possible to capture a list of users on a windows box by
only using the Win32::API module? I am aware that Win32::NetAdmin and
Win32::AdminMisc have wrappers around C functions that accomplish this but
52 matches
Mail list logo
