On 14.Feb.2005 09:01PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> Here's my list of suggestions for each:
>
> 1) label, description
> 2) directive, instruction
> 3) diagnostic
>
> I want to avoid the word "comment" altogether, making the
> optionalness of #1 and #3 evident in their words, the
> activeness of #2
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:40:55PM -0500, Peter Kay wrote:
> Chromatic wrote:
> >1) an optional description of a test, which occurs after the test number
> >but precedes an optional '#' character and anything following until the
> >newline character, having no effect on parsing
>
> Summary?
Summa
Chromatic wrote:
1) an optional description of a test, which occurs after the test number
but precedes an optional '#' character and anything following until the
newline character, having no effect on parsing
Summary?
That's what the one line short description in Bugzilla is called.
--Peter
> Hm, that does seem valuable. Should all test modules report their
> versions by default, though?
well, my thought was that it was more important to list the source of the
comparison operators the user uses (like is() or eq_array()) than it was the
internal stuff that, say, interfaces with Test
Fergal Daly wrote:
I was thinking of knocking together Test::AnnounceVersion.
use Test::AnnounceVersion qw(A::List Of::Modules);
which results in
# using version 1.5 of A::List
# using version 0.1 of Of::Modules
supplying no import args would make it output $VERSION from every package it
can find.
I was thinking of knocking together Test::AnnounceVersion.
use Test::AnnounceVersion qw(A::List Of::Modules);
which results in
# using version 1.5 of A::List
# using version 0.1 of Of::Modules
supplying no import args would make it output $VERSION from every package it
can find.
If you don't w
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 09:25 -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> yeah, I'll second this, at least so far as adding a version component to
> Test::More goes (which is different than adding a TAP version, which I don't
> have an opinion on:). Test.pm currently prints out
>
> # Using Test.pm version 1.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:41:17PM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > Err, why? Who else is emitting a version string? Or anything? Do we
> > start prefixing everything else with TAP?
>
> I have intentionally put version strings in the output, especially of
> of related modules. For example, DBD::
> This is helpful for processing bug reports, so I don't have to make
> second trip back to the user to ask: "What version of CGI.pm where you
> using?".
yeah, I'll second this, at least so far as adding a version component to
Test::More goes (which is different than adding a TAP version, which
On 2005-02-18, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:13:05AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> On 2005-02-15, Clayton, Nik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >ver 1.1
>>
>> If you go this route, I would make it clear whose emitting the version
>> string:
>>
>>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:13:05AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 2005-02-15, Clayton, Nik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >ver 1.1
>
> If you go this route, I would make it clear whose emitting the version
> string:
>
> TAP version 1.1
Err, why? Who else is emitting a version string
On 2005-02-15, Clayton, Nik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>ver 1.1
If you go this route, I would make it clear whose emitting the version
string:
TAP version 1.1
###
Mark
--
http://mark.stosberg.com/
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:44:03AM -, Clayton, Nik wrote:
>todo 3 - Todo, using new todo syntax
>
> should it ever be decided that putting 'skip' and 'todo' markers after
> a character that has had at least 25 years of being treated as a comment
> marker is not necessarily a good idea...
> #2 and #3 look similar but act differently. Unfixable by about 16
> years. Fine.
On that thought -- how do people feel about describing a mechanism for
extending TAP now, while there's only one large consumer of it, rather
than later, when there are (hopefully) going to be multiple disparate
u
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:17:54PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> --- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you tell I'm wearing my editor's hat?
>
> Awfully big hat :)
Goes with the pants.
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you tell I'm wearing my editor's hat?
Awfully big hat :)
=
If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send
follow up questions to the list.
Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 23:04 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> Darn you and your clear thinking.
Truly clear thinking would have realized that Description, Directive,
Diagnostics is a very nice mnemonic. (It's doubly nice because
"diagnostics" appears in the plural form so much more often than the
sing
On Feb 14, 2005, at 9:01 PM, chromatic wrote:
Here's my list of suggestions for each:
1) label, description
2) directive, instruction
3) diagnostic
I want to avoid the word "comment" altogether, making the optionalness
of #1 and #3 evident in their words, the activeness of #2 evident in
its
word,
I want to avoid the word "comment" altogether, making the optionalness
of #1 and #3 evident in their words, the activeness of #2 evident in
its
word, and any comparison to Perl's comments in syntax or name go away.
Darn you and your clear thinking.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.pe
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 14:38 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> Anything that starts with # is ignored by the harness. That's very
> different from the test comment.
Yet Test::Harness::TAP calls them comments and comment lines!
Put on my boots for a second. Here's what I'm trying to explain:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:32:35PM -0500, Michael G Schwern ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > But it makes explaining the TAP format a pain. The "test comment" is
> > everything after the test number or "ok" and before the # comment
> > marker or end of the line.
Anything that starts with # is ign
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:04:44AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> Is this not correct? Where is the TAP protocol documented?
http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/Test-Harness-2.46/lib/Test/Harness/TAP.pod
(Any Test-Harness distribution 2.46 or later, IIRC)
Nicholas Clark
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:48:39AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> It makes good enough sense when you're dealing with the call to the
> test:
>
>ok($blah, "This is a test comment");
>
> But it makes explaining the TAP format a pain. The "test comment" is
> everything after the test number or "ok" and
Quoting chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:49 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> > It's a comment.
>
> *What* is a comment? Is it the semantically insignificant text that can
> contain skip or TODO or the semantically significant text with a
> preceding # somewhere?
> They're se
--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:48:39AM -0800, Ovid
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > It's actually rather important that I have an answer for this, but
> I
> > really can't go into more detail (sorry).
>
> It's a comment.
There's more than one thing being d
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:49 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> It's a comment.
*What* is a comment? Is it the semantically insignificant text that can
contain skip or TODO or the semantically significant text with a
preceding # somewhere?
Is it both? I find that full of explanatory confusion potentia
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:48:39AM -0800, Ovid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It's actually rather important that I have an answer for this, but I
> really can't go into more detail (sorry).
It's a comment.
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
What follows are the notes I have from someone else regarding the name
"comment" for what was previously considered the "label."
It's actually rather important that I have an answer for this, but I
really can't go into more detail (sorry).
Cheers,
Ovid
> It's been settled. It's officially a "te
Andy Lester wrote:
I have a modest proposal.
Stop calling the 2nd parm to ok() the "name". It's really a comment.
I concur. I'm giving a talk next week which will in part be about
testing in Perl, and I will describe the second argument (actually, in
some Test::More functions, the *final* ar
On Dec 2, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Let's start calling it the comment, in all of our testing modules,
starting now.
I give this a hearty shrug of indifference. Patches to Test::More
welcome.
This patches Test::More, Test::Simple, Test::Tutorial and Test::Builder
to refer to
'na
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:40:09AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> I have a modest proposal.
>
> Stop calling the 2nd parm to ok() the "name". It's really a comment.
>
> ok( $is_happy, "Make sure the doodad is wingoed" );
>
> That text string is not a "name" in the sense of naming a test,
> esp
Andy,
You have my vote for "comments".
Calling it a test "name" have never made sense to me.
Steve
On Dec 2, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Andy Lester wrote:
I have a modest proposal.
Stop calling the 2nd parm to ok() the "name". It's really a comment.
ok( $is_happy, "Make sure the doodad is wingoed" );
Th
Ovid,
I second that complaint against JUnit. I recently have been doing some
Java work and found it somewhat frustrating that when my test failed I
had to read line numbers and hunt around, etc etc etc. I have gotten so
used to my test comment not only pointing me right to the failed test,
but
t;comment" and leave it at that.
Yes, I'm painfully aware of that. As with POD, traditional comments,
test comments or anything else that is not absolutely required to get
software to function, programmers (including me) will take shortcuts.
Even if we don't skimp, they'll get
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:14:03AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Hmm ... I like this idea, though I confess that I don't like that the
> comment is optional.
There's no way to not make it optional. If you require that a comment
be passed, then people will pass "comment" a
--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a modest proposal.
> Stop calling the 2nd parm to ok() the "name". It's really a comment.
>
> ok( $is_happy, "Make sure the doodad is wingoed" );
Hmm ... I like this idea, though I confess that I don't like that the
comment is optional. Wh
I have a modest proposal.
Stop calling the 2nd parm to ok() the "name". It's really a comment.
ok( $is_happy, "Make sure the doodad is wingoed" );
That text string is not a "name" in the sense of naming a test,
especially since it's entirely optional. You can't do any lookup to say
"go fin
37 matches
Mail list logo
