On 1 Nov 2007, at 21:12, brian d foy wrote:
I hadn't been paying too close attention, but it looks like TSP might
be able to do the stuff I am doing with Test::Manifest. If TSP become
core, that would be really nice. :)
Well I'd like that - but it's not without controversy :)
--
Andy Armstro
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy
Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have this ticket in the Test::Harness RT queue:
>
> http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=29633
>
> Martin Thurn is asking for a SKIP_OUT directive that would skip all
> remaining test files and return a PASS.
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-01 15:50]:
> The config needs to be dynamic at test time - so it might as
> well be a script that runs and outputs a description of which
> tests to run, right?
But it only needs to be dynamic in a minority of cases. So it
seems to me it should be the
On 1 Nov 2007, at 14:31, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
This way they can have control over not only which files to
run, but which routines (if they're using Test::Class), etc,
etc.
… TAP encompasses scenarios where the notion of files and test
routines doesn’t even compute.
Yes - agree 100%. Hence it s
* Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-01 15:15]:
> Sounds to me like it should just be a custom test harness. If
> the user needs to dynamically figure out which tests to run,
> then why not create a custom harness which will do what they
> need.
I was going to say the same. Then it occure
