On Sep 27, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Ha ha. I just realized that I totally screwed myself out of using this
policy. I'm using a subclass of Test::More, not Test:More itself.
See Don't 'rm -fr /' when testing for the topic of that.
Would it be possible, or even desirable to
* Adrian Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-29 14:21]:
If I had a big pile of tests without descriptions I wouldn't
want them dying either.
PERL5OPT=-MTest::EnsureDescriptions=:nonfatal
?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
On 27 Sep 2006, at 23:53, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
[snip]
Would it be possible, or even desirable to flip some sort of config to
make this test all t files, or tell this policy that my test class eq
'Test::More' in this instance?
[snip]
Not that this wouldn't be a nice idea, but as another
Override Test::Builder::ok to croak if it doesn't get a test name argument.
Package that up in a module and shim it in with PERL5OPT or
HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES.
I kind of dislike this approach. If my tests are failing, I want them
to fail because my program is broken, not because my tests
On 28 Sep 2006, at 22:37, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
Override Test::Builder::ok to croak if it doesn't get a test name
argument. Package that up in a module and shim it in with PERL5OPT
or HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES.
I kind of dislike this approach. If my tests are failing, I want them
to fail
Chris Dolan wrote:
On Sep 24, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Ok, I'll play your game. :-)
http://perlcritic.tigris.org/svn/perlcritic/trunk/Perl-Critic/lib/Perl/Critic/Policy/Testing/
[Assuming I'm not silly] Empty! Rev. 667
-=Chris
D'oh! SVN commits work better if
Chris Dolan wrote:
On Sep 24, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Ok, I'll play your game. :-)
http://perlcritic.tigris.org/svn/perlcritic/trunk/Perl-Critic/lib/Perl/Critic/Policy/Testing/
[Assuming I'm not silly] Empty! Rev. 667
-=Chris
D'oh! SVN commits work better if
On Sep 25, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Now, for part 2. :-)
What's the sanest way to test t/*.t files without also testing
everything in t/lib ?
If I'm already using all_critic_ok(), I can't just call critic_ok() on
all the t/*.t files because a plan has already been set.
I've got a crap loads of tests in Handel at the moment; 1+
checkpoints, and enough files that I hit the dreaded command line too
long under win32 [now fixed]. That's not saying all the tests are
glorious and not repetitive. :-)
I've still got a ways to go before I'm happy without the dist
On Sep 24, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
I've got a crap loads of tests in Handel at the moment; 1+
checkpoints, and enough files that I hit the dreaded command line too
long under win32 [now fixed]. That's not saying all the tests are
glorious and not repetitive. :-)
I've
Chris Dolan wrote:
[snip]
Done. I created Perl::Critic::Policy::Testing::RequireTestLabels and
added it to the Perl::Critic SVN at
http://perlcritic.tigris.org/svn/perlcritic/trunk/Perl-Critic
(username: guest, password: )
It was pretty simple to write. Below are the important bits of
On Sep 24, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Ok, I'll play your game. :-)
http://perlcritic.tigris.org/svn/perlcritic/trunk/Perl-Critic/lib/
Perl/Critic/Policy/Testing/
[Assuming I'm not silly] Empty! Rev. 667
-=Chris
D'oh! SVN commits work better if you svn add first...
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:28:45PM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
I think even better than
ok( $expr, name );
or
ok( $expr, comment );
is
ok( $expr, label );
RJBS points out that comment implies not really worth doing, and I
still don't like name because it implies (to me) a
On Tue 07 Dec 2004 05:28, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think even better than
ok( $expr, name );
or
ok( $expr, comment );
is
ok( $expr, label );
or ok ($expr, indicator);
or ok ($expr, tag);
for me the name/comment/label/tag/indicator/... is just a tag (which
I don't really agree that comment implies not really worth doing. I
think
those inclined to not put a name/comment/label on their test will not
do it
whatever we end up calling it. IMO the only way to get people to do it
would
be to make it required, and I don't think that is a good idea.
I
I think even better than
ok( $expr, name );
or
ok( $expr, comment );
is
ok( $expr, label );
RJBS points out that comment implies not really worth doing, and I
still don't like name because it implies (to me) a unique identifier.
We also talked about description, but description is
16 matches
Mail list logo
