TAPx::Parser 0.11 (with tprove)

Hi all, http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/downloads/TAPx-Parser-0.11.tar.gz Part of the reason folks can't give much feedback is that they can't run this. In the examples/ directory, there is a 'tprove' script. Copy this to your path and run in the same directory that has your lib/ and t/ dire

Re: TAPx::Parser 0.11 (with tprove)

For what it's worth, I've also uploaded this to the CPAN. It's well-developed enough that I feel comfortable with it out there. Cheers, Ovid -- 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://use

$parser->unexpectedly_succeeded;

Hi all, For the TAPx::Parser, I need a better way of tracking all tests which unexpectedly succeed. The simple way is to have the user accumulate them while the tests are running: while ( my $result = $parser->results ) { if ( $result->is_test && $result->has_todo && $result->actual_pass

Re: Kwalitee metric: Community support channels

Shlomi Fish wrote: On Monday 24 July 2006 16:23, Salve J Nilsen wrote: Which specific types of channels one should get points for may warrant discussion, but if our goal is the improvement of the software, we should at least encourage a mininmum number of ways to reach the users and develope

Re: $parser->unexpectedly_succeeded;

Ovid wrote: Hi all, For the TAPx::Parser, I need a better way of tracking all tests which unexpectedly succeed. The simple way is to have the user accumulate them while the tests are running: while ( my $result = $parser->results ) { if ( $result->is_test && $result->has_todo && $resul

Re: Module Signatures

* Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-26 05:50]: > I'll assume you didn’t actually mean it the way it came out;) > that you were actually complaining that M:S falls short because > our security model needs *further* action not because M:S has > deficiencies. If M:S has deficiencies, mayb

Re: Module Signatures

Hmm, in retrospect I realize that this phrasing was a bit ambiguous: * A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-26 04:10]: > I’ll assume you didn’t actually mean it the way it came out; > that you were actually complaining about the tools. To clear up any confusion, here’s how it should read:

Re: TAPx::Parser 0.10 (now with stream support)

Ovid wrote: Hi all, [...] A few comments before I start work: A stream is merely a coderef which returns "chunks" of TAP. When it returns undef, the stream is considered finished. It will be trivial for me to change this, if needed. What is a "chunk"? Is it a "line"? A partial or multip