David H. Adler wrote:
A question: is there any reason that you made this an OO module but
still show calls to the methods as functions rather than methods on the
object?
I.e. why C rather than
C<$capture->verify_number_lines> ? This would also remove the need to
explicitly export those functions.
J
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 11:30:56PM -0500, David A. Golden wrote:
> > stdout_is {
> > print scalar caller;
> > } scalar caller;
>
> That's a good warning on code blocks, and worth documenting for a module
> like this, but I'm not sure it's going to be a big issue in writing tes
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:47:56PM -0500, David A. Golden wrote:
The trouble with this interface is sometimes you want to collect a bunch
of output from a bunch of different functions together.
That's why I suggested that it be prototyped to take a code block:
stdout_is {
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:47:56PM -0500, David A. Golden wrote:
> >The trouble with this interface is sometimes you want to collect a bunch
> >of output from a bunch of different functions together.
>
> That's why I suggested that it be prototyped to take a code block:
>
> stdout_is {
> fcn1
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:30:24AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
stdout_is { fcn() } $string, "comment"; # exact
stdout_like{ fcn() } qr/regex/, "comment"; # regex match
stdout_count { fcn() } qr/regex/, $count, "comment"; # number of matches
stdout_found { fcn()
On 11 Feb 2005, at 19:52, Shawn Sorichetti wrote:
[snip]
I've started working on Test::Output that is based on Schwern's TieOut
module that comes with Test::More. I'm hoping to have it released on
CPAN later tonight.
Test::Output is a self contained so that it can be included with other
modules
David H. Adler wrote:
A question: is there any reason that you made this an OO module but
still show calls to the methods as functions rather than methods on the
object?
An answer: It was a quick hack based on my first day's experience with
IO::Capture::Stdout. Its original rationale was simpl
Tels wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 21:08, David H. Adler wrote:
Just askin'. :-)
In similiar line of thought:
Why "verify_number_lines" instead of the (much shorter :) "lines"?
"Speaking source code" is something I like, but it shouldn't gabble on :)
Oh, and why "TestAuxiliary" and not "Test::
Shawn Sorichetti wrote:
I've started working on Test::Output that is based on Schwern's TieOut
module that comes with Test::More. I'm hoping to have it released on
CPAN later tonight.
Test::Output is a self contained so that it can be included with other
modules, and no prereqs. Right now it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Friday 11 February 2005 21:08, David H. Adler wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:28:30PM -0500, James E Keenan wrote:
> > And here are the fruits of my application of IO::Capture: a module
> > with three subroutines which have proven useful in the pro
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:28:30PM -0500, James E Keenan wrote:
> And here are the fruits of my application of IO::Capture: a module with
> three subroutines which have proven useful in the project I'm working on
> for my day job.
>
> The full module is here:
> http://mysite.verizon.net/jkeen
On Feb 11, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:30:24AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
overly repetitive to me. What about refactoring it into a set of test
fun
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:30:24AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
>
> I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
> overly repetitive to me. What about refactoring it into a set of test
> functions that handle it for the user automa
David Golden wrote:
My $0.02:
Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
overly repetitive to me.
Agreed.
What about refactoring it into a set of test
functions that handle it for the user automatically? Just quickly off
the cu
My $0.02:
Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
overly repetitive to me. What about refactoring it into a set of test
functions that handle it for the user automatically? Just quickly off the
cuff, what about a test module
David Cantrell wrote:
Jim Keenan wrote:
Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Would IO::Capture be of help here?
And here are the fruits of my application of IO::Capture: a module
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 12:46:51PM -0800, Jim Keenan wrote:
> Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
> possible to test whether what was printed to a
> filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
> strings?
Any number of existing modules can be used which capture the output of
a f
David Cantrell wrote:
Jim Keenan wrote:
Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Would IO::Capture be of help here?
Looks promising. Hope to find time today to try it out and report
Jim Keenan wrote:
Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Would IO::Capture be of help here?
--
David Cantrell
19 matches
Mail list logo
