* Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com [2011-10-29T05:20:07]
[ What if subtests stop indenting? ]
Sorry, I'm quite late to the party.
I really like the isolated planning of subtests, and the visual indenting, and
(least of the three) the potential for building a better visualizer that works
with
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 was
On 2011.10.30 11:15 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Sunday 30 October 2011 20:30:
The current Test::Builder implementation is a mess and its design
cannot go forward. They have to be gotten just right to ensure that
not just nested TAP is supported, but nesting in
Hiya,
On 29 Oct 2011, at 10:20, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
[snip]
Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
which have their own separate test state
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
On 2011.10.30 2:58 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
I prefer the current subtests system for a few reasons:
* With the new system I would have to re-write TAP streams from other sources
to match the numbering system of the
On 2011.10.30 7:21 PM, David Golden wrote:
I haven't followed the T::B 2 work closely enough, so could I ask you
to please step back and explain the benefits of T::B 1.5 that is worth
stepping backwards in terms of capabilities? What I mean is that we
have TAP::Harness now that processes
On 2011.10.28 12:23 AM, Ovid wrote:
Echo chamber alert: I've often seen long discussions on this list ignore
the real world (though often for good reason). In this case, it sounds
like there's a consideration of removing a feature from TAP.
No, not removing from TAP but removing support for
On 2011.10.28 6:52 AM, David Golden wrote:
Without looking at the actual code, I would guess that the complexity
is implementing subtests while preserving the legacy procedural
interface that wraps calls to a global singleton.
No, that's not really the problem. It was when Ovid originally
Hey,
On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
[snip]
Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
which have their own separate test state (as currently implemented)
This may be me being dim - but I'm not really groking the distinction
On 29 October 2011 18:20, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
[snip]
Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
which have their own separate
- http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/
Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/
- Forwarded Message -
From: Ovid curtis_ovid_...@yahoo.com
To: Fergal Daly fer...@esatclear.ie
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011, 17:33
Subject: Re: Do we need subtests in TAP
On 2011.10.29 3:51 AM, Fergal Daly wrote:
It seems like it's impossible then to declare a global plan in advance
if you use subtests unless you go counting all the sub tests which is
no fun,
Yes, that's a very good point.
use Test::More tests = 3;
subtest first = sub { ... };
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ovid curtis_ovid_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Moving along, the *idea* of a nested TAP is so conceptually simple that if
the implementing code is struggling with it, perhaps it's a sign that there
are some design decisions which should be revisited? When I find
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
I keep looking at subtests and keeping thinking that if there wasn't a test
count to manage, would we need subtests? Do we need all that complexity? If
it's just about the test count, can it be managed a better way?
On 10/25/11 11:56 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I keep looking at subtests and keeping thinking that if there wasn't a test
count to manage, would we need subtests? Do we need all that complexity? If
it's just about the test count, can it be managed a better way?
I haven't followed this
15 matches
Mail list logo
