On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:54:44 +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> The problem there is the case where you want to override behaviors but still
> keep state between the two objects. So things like the test counter and
> test details would have to be preserved. I guess this is what chromatic was
> ta
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:04:53PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> O! Just had an idea prompted by reset(). How about having
>
> $builder->push_state;
> $builder->pop_state;
>
> that would store and restore the complete state of the builder object
> in a stack? Would make it easier
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 01:40 am, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:31:43AM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
Test::Builder->new would remain as a singleton. We'd just provide an
alternate constructor to provide a second object if someone really wants
it.
You know, that
At 01:31 + 11/12/02, Mark Fowler wrote:
One day (maybe not this rewrite, maybe not the next) I'd like to see you
be able to write layers of tests. That is to say that you have some kind
of Test::Harness like system running actually inside a Test::Builder test
that runs another set of tests an
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:31:43AM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > Test::Builder->new would remain as a singleton. We'd just provide an
> > alternate constructor to provide a second object if someone really wants it.
>
> You know, that would at the very least tidy up Test::Builder::Tester
> somewh
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> chronomatic wrote:
> > My point is that mixing. Test::Builder outputs is bad juju:
>
> Test::Builder->new would remain as a singleton. We'd just provide an
> alternate constructor to provide a second object if someone really wants it.
You know, th
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:51:00PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> On Monday 11 November 2002 14:40, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > > We *could* add a method called really_create_a_new_builder() that doesn't
> > > have the singleton properties, but what problem does that solve? As long
> > > as we're s
On Monday 11 November 2002 14:40, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > We *could* add a method called really_create_a_new_builder() that doesn't
> > have the singleton properties, but what problem does that solve? As long
> > as we're stuck with test numbers, we have to try not to confuse
> > Test::Harne
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:05:13AM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> > Also, for those who aren't happy with the fact that Test::Builder is a hard
> > singleton with its state held in a bunch of file-scoped lexicals (hard to
> > debug) reset() made me collect together all those state variables in one
> > p
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 02:24:23 +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Also, for those who aren't happy with the fact that Test::Builder is a hard
> singleton with its state held in a bunch of file-scoped lexicals (hard to
> debug) reset() made me collect together all those state variables in one
> point
Coming soon in Test::Builder, reset()! This will allow a Test::Builder user
to reset the internal state of the test making it much easier to run tests
in persistent environments. mod_perl users have Alex Francis to thank for
this feature.
Also, for those who aren't happy with the fact that Test:
11 matches
Mail list logo
