Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> "Michael" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Michael> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>>> Lately I find myself cheating a bit on the test naming as well, by just
>>> calling the testing package t::lib::Test.
>>>
>>> That saves me one entire line :)
>
> Micha
> "Michael" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>> Lately I find myself cheating a bit on the test naming as well, by just
>> calling the testing package t::lib::Test.
>>
>> That saves me one entire line :)
Michael> Relying on . being in @INC makes m
Ovid did write:
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Personally, I've always wanted a per-file bail_out as well, that
can
just abort the current test script, rather than the entire testing
process.
Schwern? :)
die.
Definitely the way to go. Up until I st
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > Personally, I've always wanted a per-file bail_out as well, that
> can
> > just abort the current test script, rather than the entire testing
> process.
> >
> > Schwern? :)
>
> die.
Definitely the way to go. Up until I
Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Personally, I've always wanted a per-file bail_out as well, that can
> just abort the current test script, rather than the entire testing process.
>
> Schwern? :)
die.
Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Lately I find myself cheating a bit on the test naming as well, by just
> calling the testing package t::lib::Test.
>
> That saves me one entire line :)
Relying on . being in @INC makes my feet itch.
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Ovid wrote:
However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit. This
seems to violate the principle that tests should be able to run in any
order without dependencies.
It doesn't viola
What I did instead is moved all the setup and teardown stuff into simple
functions, plopped them into modules in t/lib/ and had each test do:
use lib 't/lib';
use MakeMaker::Test;
setup_foo();
END { teardown_foo(); }
You can even get clever and pack the setup/te
* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-05 06:25]:
> # from Greg Sabino Mullane
> # on Thursday 04 January 2007 07:39 pm:
>
> > [1] I've never had a need for random tests myself. The only
> > reason I break mine apart is to isolate testing various
> > sub-systems, but I almost always end up ha
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Michael G Shwern wrote:
>> Such a bother.
>> ...
>> You can even get clever and pack the setup/teardown calls into
>> loading the module so you have even less code per script.
>>
>> Now each test runs independently and cleans itself up.
>
> True, but at the expense
Michael G Shwern wrote:
> Such a bother.
> ...
> You can even get clever and pack the setup/teardown calls into
> loading the module so you have even less code per script.
>
> Now each test runs independently and cleans itself up.
True, but at the expense of having to run the startup and cleanup
Ovid wrote:
> However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
> is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit. This
> seems to violate the principle that tests should be able to run in any
> order without dependencies.
It doesn't violate the principle sinc
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> [1] I've never had a need for random tests myself. The only reason I
> break mine apart is to isolate testing various sub-systems, but I almost
> always end up having some dependencies put into an early "00" file. I
> also tend to a have a final "99" cleanup file. While
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[...]
[1] I've never had a need for random tests myself. The only reason I
break mine apart is to isolate testing various sub-systems, but I almost
always end up having some dependencies put into an early "00" file. I
also tend to a have a final "99" cleanup file. Whi
On 1/4/07, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/4/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>
> >> No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
> >
> > Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe!
>
> It
On 1/4/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
>
> Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe!
It is as far as Test::Harness goes. Test::Harness doesn't have
On Jan 4, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe!
It is as far as Test::Harness goes. Test::Harness doesn't have any
sort of idea of what connects tests together.
# from Andy Lester
# on Thursday 04 January 2007 06:25 pm:
>On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> Is it possible to shuffle all but the first tests?
>
>No. You either have tests that are ordered, or you don't.
Stated as if it were some sort of immutable law of the universe! My
poi
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:34 -0800, Ovid wrote:
> I guess the reason I have never used BAIL_OUT is because if I have a
> bunch of tests failing, they fail quickly and I don't have to wait for
> them :) I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but I noticed it this
> evening and thought I would toss i
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-04T16:34:31]
> I guess the reason I have never used BAIL_OUT is because if I have a
> bunch of tests failing, they fail quickly and I don't have to wait for
> them :) I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but I noticed it this
> evening and thought I would toss
On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Ovid
# on Thursday 04 January 2007 01:34 pm:
However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit.
This seems to violate the principle that tests should be
# from Ovid
# on Thursday 04 January 2007 01:34 pm:
>However, if you use the '-s' switch to shuffle your tests and bailout
>is not first, then some tests will run until the BAIL_OUT is hit.
> This seems to violate the principle that tests should be able to run
> in any order without dependencies.
22 matches
Mail list logo
