Ovid writes:
> it's getting harder to find out which TODO tests are unexpectedly
> passing.
> [...]
> Suggestions?
I am spoiling my own YAPC::EU 2009 talk here but try this toolchain:
# the tool chain
$ cpan App::DPath
# prepare example project which contains passing TODOs
$ cd /tmp/
Ovid wrote:
> - Original Message
>> From: chromatic
>
>> Add diagnostics to TODO tests and let your test harness do what it's
>> supposed
>> to do. Shoving yet more optional behavior in the test process continues to
>> violate the reasons for having separate test processes and TAP an
# from Ovid
# on Tuesday 14 July 2009 03:33:
>> Fork/branch Test::Builder and make it work yourself. When it's ready
>> and usable, ask Schwern to evaluate, improve and merge.
>>
>> Code = Conversation. :)
>
>I know. I've thought about that, but truth be told, I'm really
> getting burnt out with
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Ovid wrote:
> We have no diagnostics. We've never had diagnostics (the ad-hoc things
> going to STDERR don't count because they can't be synched or reliably
> parsed). Thus, I can't add diagnostics to the TODO tests until Schwern puts
> diagnostics in Test::Builde
On Tuesday 14 July 2009 02:43:44 Ovid wrote:
> Thus, I'm trying to think of a way of solving my problem now, not at some
> hypothetical date in the future.
Next option: write your own test harness which dies when it encounters a bonus
test. This should take you less than an afternoon.
If that
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 03:33:29AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> I know. I've thought about that, but truth be told, I'm really getting burnt
> out with the Perl community right now. Lots of people are being rude,
> thinking that being "right" is all they need to justify being arrogant and
> it's sapp
- Original Message
> From: Salve J Nilsen
>
> Fork/branch Test::Builder and make it work yourself. When it's ready and
> usable,
> ask Schwern to evaluate, improve and merge.
>
> Code = Conversation. :)
I know. I've thought about that, but truth be told, I'm really getting burnt
o
Ovid said:
- Original Message
From: chromatic
Add diagnostics to TODO tests and let your test harness do what
it's supposed to do. Shoving yet more optional behavior in the
test process continues to violate the reasons for having separate
test processes and TAP analyzers.
We ha
- Original Message
> From: chromatic
> Add diagnostics to TODO tests and let your test harness do what it's supposed
> to do. Shoving yet more optional behavior in the test process continues to
> violate the reasons for having separate test processes and TAP analyzers.
We have no di
On Monday 13 July 2009 06:56:15 Ovid wrote:
> We currently have over 30,000 tests in our system. It's getting harder to
> manage them. In particular, it's getting harder to find out which TODO
> tests are unexpectedly passing. It would be handy have to some option to
> force TODO tests to die o
* On Mon, Jul 13 2009, Ovid wrote:
> How would Smolder (which we're not using since we use Hudson) help
> with this? With over 15,000 tests being reported for t/aggregate.t, I
> think a drill-down would be problematic here. Plus, tying the TODO to
> the appropriate test file being aggregated is ne
Gabor Szabo wrote:
AFAIK due to the number of tests it won't work well in Smolder - but I
have not tried it.
I was referencing to a future version of it ;-)
It's worth a try. Our main test suite at $work has 23,000+ tests and Smolder
handles it just fine.
--
Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Michael Peters wrote:
> Gabor Szabo wrote:
>
>> I think it would be better to have a tool (Smolder) be able to display
>> various drill-downs from the aggregated test report.
>
> If you want to see what Smolder would do to your tests, create a TAP archive
> and then
Gabor Szabo wrote:
I think it would be better to have a tool (Smolder) be able to display
various drill-downs from the aggregated test report.
If you want to see what Smolder would do to your tests, create a TAP archive and
then you can upload it to the "Junk" project at http://smolder.plusth
- Original Message
> From: Gabor Szabo
>
> I think it would be better to have a tool (Smolder) be able to display
> various drill-downs from the aggregated test report.
> e.g. list of all the TODOs
> list of all the TODOs that pass
> etc...
How would Smolder (which we're not using since
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ovid wrote:
>
> We currently have over 30,000 tests in our system. It's getting harder to
> manage them. In particular, it's getting harder to find out which TODO tests
> are unexpectedly passing. It would be handy have to some option to force
> TODO tests to
16 matches
Mail list logo
