* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-26T09:19:46]
> > It would be nice if I could just write 'use My::Test::More' in my
> > test scripts and have that provide what I need
>
> Side note: yes, it's trivial for me to write an extra module which provide
> an environment variable or something similar f
Ovid wrote:
> From: Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I'm thinking about doing the same thing. Before Chris Dolan wrote a
>> Testing::RequireTestLabels policy for me (thanks!), I was going to
>> subclass Test::More and expose the usual methods and tack on my argument
>> checking.
>
> J
On 26 Sep 2006, at 14:59, Ovid wrote:
[snip]
(You know, you could probably use that to do interesting things
like caching the last time a given developer ran tests. Hmm, why
anyone want to do that?)
[snip]
So you can do interesting things like run tests in "most recently
failed" order?
- Original Message
From: Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's one of the nice things about prove, is that you can say prove -
> v testname.t and still get HARNESS_ACTIVE.
Agreed, but when someone forgets and runs the test program directly with
'perl', I can't risk more email being
On Sep 26, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Ovid wrote:
but I think it would be helpful to have something a bit more
reliable (that variable's not set if I just run the tests with
'perl testname.t').
That's one of the nice things about prove, is that you can say prove -
v testname.t and still get HARNES
From: Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm thinking about doing the same thing. Before Chris Dolan wrote a
> Testing::RequireTestLabels policy for me (thanks!), I was going to
> subclass Test::More and expose the usual methods and tack on my argument
> checking.
Just threw this together
Ovid wrote:
[snip]
> It would be nice if I could just write 'use My::Test::More' in my test
> scripts and have that provide what I need, but I'm not sure if trying to
> re-export all of the test functions from Test::More (kind of like subclassing
> which isn't a class) is a bright idea, but it'
- Original Message
From: Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It would be nice if I could just write 'use My::Test::More' in my
> test scripts and have that provide what I need
Side note: yes, it's trivial for me to write an extra module which provide an
environment variable or something similar
From: Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What about
>
>$some_object->send_email(@args);
>
> and having your test code:
>
>a. replace the object (probably a singleton or an obj in a
>global) with a mock object that doesn't actually send email
>
>b. also test that send_email is being
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:13:11 -0700, Ovid wrote:
> unless ( defined &Test::More::ok ) { send_email(@args) }
What about
$some_object->send_email(@args);
and having your test code:
a. replace the object (probably a singleton or an obj in a
global) with a mock object t
I'm really not sure of the best way to handle this, so I thought I'd toss this
out to some of you folks.
I recently found out that one of my test programs accidentally sent a bunch of
error email to our support staff. There's often an environment variable named
'HARNESS_ACTIVE' if tests are be
11 matches
Mail list logo
