Ovid wrote:
- Original Message
From: Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ovid wrote:
I'm perfectly comfortable with this idea, but what I'm trying to figure
> > out then, is the namespace for my parser. It's a TAP parser, after all.
> > Any suggestions? I see that Adam has suggeste
The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
file:foo.t
line:45
description: omg t3h sooper test!!1!
got: this
expected:that
r
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
> talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
>
> not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
> file:foo.t
> line:45
These diagnostic keywords seem to blend too much into the rest of TAP. Consider:
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
! file:foo.t
! line:45
! description: omg t3h sooper test!!1!
! got: this
! expected:that
! raw-test:is( "this", "that", "omg t3h sooper test!
Subject: TAP diagnostic syntax proposal
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:19:03 -0700
}The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
}talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
}
} not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper tes
On 7/10/06, Ian Langworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These diagnostic keywords seem to blend too much into the rest of TAP.
Look at it in a fixed-with font, if you're not already, and it might
stand out better.
Also consider that with the next gen TAP parsers, "enhanced" TAP
displays should be
On 7/10/06, Pete Krawczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would be concerned about "got" or "expected" including embedded
newlines, such as:
is($mech->content,$expected_page,"Web page content matches what's expected");
even with a delimiter such as Ian suggested. How would this handle that?
Y
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>got: this
>expected:that
"got" still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to "received"?
-- c
- Original Message
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> >got: this
> >expected:that
>
> "got" still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to "received"?
I like "pitched" and "caught".
... silence ...
On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:34, chromatic wrote:
"got" still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to "received"?
It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about "got"?
Best,
David
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
--- TAP diagnostics
file:foo.t
Why aren't we commenting the YAML block so that it's compatible with
current TAP parsers? I'm thinking something like this:
not ok 2 - ensure that foo is equal to bar
# --- !!tap/diagnostics
# file: foo.t
# line: 4
On Monday 10 July 2006 11:41, David Wheeler wrote:
> It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about "got"?
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into your underwear
before trying to get a date at your family reunion.
-- c
On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:59, chromatic wrote:
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into
your underwear
before trying to get a date at your family reunion.
That's the best place to *get* a date!
D
I agree that "got" is generally a good word to avoid in formal writing,
but in a testing protocol I think that it's an acceptable abbreviation
for "the actual result". Especially since "received" doesn't quite
convey the right meaning here. Maybe "expected data" and "actual data"
(or "expecte
On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Ovid wrote:
got: this
expected:that
"got" still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to "received"?
"Expected" and "actual"
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On Jul 10, 2006, at 2:04 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into
your underwear
before trying to get a date at your family reunion.
That's the best place to *get* a date!
Actually, weddings are. There's always someone(s) also w/o a date
prove --secret-ovid-mode ...
On 7/10/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> >got: this
> >expected:that
>
> "got" still sucks. Is there any chance to c
YAML documents [can] end with a "...".
I like Jonathan's suggestion of making the YAML comments, but my gut
feels funny about that. If the lines are preceeded with hashes, then
it's not "true" YAML; it has to be stripped of the leading characters.
Also, I'd rather have a TAP directive to state, "
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-10 20:40]:
> From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > >got: this
> > >expected:that
> >
> > "got" still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to "received"?
>
> I like "pitched"
at the chicago hackathon, i decided to create a simple tap grammar
using perl 6 regexes. you can find the example grammar at:
http://svn.perl.org/parrot/trunk/examples/pge/grammars/TAP.pg
that spawned interest from chris dolan on creating a parser using
parrot's parser grammar engine (pge.) to
On 7/10/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-10 20:40]:
> From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > >got: this
> > >expected:that
> >
> > "got" still sucks. Is there any ch
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:59:27AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Monday 10 July 2006 11:41, David Wheeler wrote:
>
> > It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about "got"?
>
> It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt tail into your
> underwear before trying to get a da
On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:59:27AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Monday 10 July 2006 11:41, David Wheeler wrote:
>
> > It's not a gift package delivered by FedEx. What sucks about "got"?
>
> It's the grammatical equivalent of tucking your shirt
On Monday 10 July 2006 15:28, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whilst I would also like to see something nicer that "got", I'm actually
> > more concerned about the ordering. I always expect to see "expected"
> > first, followed by "got" or "received" or
On 7/11/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 15:28, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whilst I would also like to see something nicer that "got", I'm actually
> > more concerned about the ordering. I always expect to see "expec
Want: This
Have: That
Put me down for this one too. Simpler for non-English speakers as well.
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
got: this
expected:that
"got" still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to "received"?
returned?
* Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-11 01:40]:
> chromatic wrote:
> >On Monday 10 July 2006 10:19, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> >> got: this
> >> expected:that
> >
> >"got" still sucks. Is there any chance to change it to "received"?
>
> returned?
Err, it’s what was pa
Michael G Schwern wrote:
The PITA/TestBuilder2 BoF at YAPC::NA (which spent most of its time
talking about TAP) sketched out a syntax for parsable TAP diagnostics.
not ok 2 - omg t3h sooper test!!1!
file:foo.t
line:45
description: omg t3h sooper test!!1!
got: th
Ovid wrote:
In the last day or so, every time I go to rt.cpan.org, it seems to
nearly finish loading a page and then just stalls.
My problem was that I couldn't even log in yesterday. I eventually
filed a bug report with perlbug-admin at perl and Robert had to
diddle the database to get
30 matches
Mail list logo
