On 22 Sep 2006, at 16:51, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 17:43, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The hack will only work for Test::Builder based tests. I said
this last month when it came up. You could write a hack for
Test.pm too, but not everyone uses Test.pm either. You're going
On Friday 22 September 2006 08:51, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I think that if Ovid hacked Test.pm, then he'd have a 99.99%
> solution. Good enough, no?
The authors of affected distributions could also switch to the
Test::Builder-based Test.pm compatibility module, if I could remember its
name.
On Sep 21, 2006, at 17:43, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The hack will only work for Test::Builder based tests. I said this
last month when it came up. You could write a hack for Test.pm
too, but not everyone uses Test.pm either. You're going to
continually be writing hacks for different test
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-22 10:50]:
> $ perl examples/tprove ~/tmp/fail.t > /dev/null
> # Test 1 got: "23" (/Users/schwern/tmp/fail.t at line 6)
> # Expected: "42"
> # /Users/schwern/tmp/fail.t line 6 is: ok 23, 42;
> $
>
> Diagnostic output leaks out to STDERR, just li
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-22 09:25]:
> However, because of a design limitation in TAP and how
> Test::Simple was implemented, we get one tiny *VISUAL* change.
> We don't get different behavior in tests. We get one
> difference in behavior in their presentation. We see if they
> succeed
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Ovid wrote:
>> From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> I will now break your solution.
>>>
>>>use Test;
>>>plan tests => 1;
>>>ok 23, 42;
>>>
>>> PHEAR MY MAD HAX0R SKILLZ!
>>>
>>> :P
>> Hmm, interesting. My parser handled that just fine.
>
> Yes,
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>print "1..1\n";
>print "not ok 1\n";
>print STDERR "# Your shit is broke.\n";
>
> How will TAPx::Parser deal with that?
You know, you could skip this entire response and read my last couple of
paragraphs. That will sum it up.
Hmm, let's
Ovid wrote:
> From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I will now break your solution.
>>
>>use Test;
>>plan tests => 1;
>>ok 23, 42;
>>
>> PHEAR MY MAD HAX0R SKILLZ!
>>
>> :P
>
> Hmm, interesting. My parser handled that just fine.
Yes, that is interesting. How did it captu
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I will now break your solution.
>
>use Test;
>plan tests => 1;
>ok 23, 42;
>
> PHEAR MY MAD HAX0R SKILLZ!
>
> :P
Hmm, interesting. My parser handled that just fine.
:P
The point isn't that the output comes before or after the test resul
Ovid wrote:
> Now I have guaranteed cross-platform behavior, STDERR and STDOUT are
> guaranteed to be in
> synch, this doesn't cause any problems for Test::Harness, I don't need to
> fork Test::Builder
> and I override one method which has not changed since May 2005.
> Unfortunately, I'll have
From: Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unfortunately, I'll have to alter the above to handle versions of
> Test-Simple prior to 0.60 and that sucks, but it also *seems*
> to work flawlessly.
I lied. I examined the code and again and my version appears to work for all
versions of Test::Builder since i
11 matches
Mail list logo
