Andy Lester wrote:
> t/op/sleep.t doesn't actually check to see how long it's slept for. The
> test takes sleep()'s word for it.
>
> I also modernized it to use Test::More and its convenience functions.
Thanks, applied as change 23206.
hi all...
I've been working on something a bit and wanted to run it by people here to
see if folks think it's a project worthy of persuing. basically the below
bit from the README kinda sums it up for me - locally wrapping lots of
routines is getting quite tedious (specifically sockets at the mom
Geoff,
This sounds like mock objects basically
(http://www.mockobjects.com/FrontPage.html), although maybe on a
smaller/more-directed scale. I do like the idea of building a mock
object repository of sorts, I am sure that would come in handy.
Steve
On Aug 9, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Geoffrey Young wr
stevan little wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> This sounds like mock objects basically
> (http://www.mockobjects.com/FrontPage.html), although maybe on a
> smaller/more-directed scale.
hrmph. now that you mention it, yeah, it does. and there's already
Test::MockObject (which I've heard about but obviously
--- Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi all...
>
> from the docs Hook::Lexwrap just seems to be way too much for testing.
Hi Geoff,
What an interesting coincidence. I recently came to the same conclusion, so I uploaded
Sub::Override to the CPAN a few days ago.
http://search.cpan.o
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 13:18, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> hrmph. now that you mention it, yeah, it does. and there's already
> Test::MockObject (which I've heard about but obviously haven't actually used
> yet :)
The author is very handsome, too.
> yeah, that was the real goal. perhaps a subclass o
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> This sounds like mock objects basically
> (http://www.mockobjects.com/FrontPage.html), although maybe on a
> smaller/more-directed scale. I do like the idea of building a mock
> object repository of sorts, I am sure that would come in h
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Test::MockObject::Extends comes to mind. It's often what people want
> instead of T::MO. Fortunately, they're in the same distribution.
Sweet. I never noticed that one. That solves a niggling issue I've had with
Test::MockObject.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Ov
