Adrian Howard wrote:
Yeah - it's something I've noticed over the last year or so. I'm
talking to people less about "you should write tests", and much more
about "you should write /good/ tests".
What do people think are *good* tests?
My modules mostly have *comprehensive* tests, but that do
On 19/09/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> But there's nothing here for the author to do so it should not be
> marked TODO.
Sure there is. They now know Fribble works and can once again start relying on
it.
To be clear, the scenario is that Foo uses Fribb
On 9/19/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adrian Howard wrote:
> Yeah - it's something I've noticed over the last year or so. I'm
> talking to people less about "you should write tests", and much more
> about "you should write /good/ tests".
What do people think are *good* tests?
M
Hi all!
I thought I could safely rely on using a Test::Run::Iteratory (essentially the
same as Test::Harness::Iterator) object as a an argument to "stream =>" in
TAPx::Parser. However, then Ovid added more required to the iterator.
Switching to TAPx::Parser::Iterator :
http://search.cpan.org/
David Cantrell wrote:
clearly. So my attempt to make my tests good will mostly consist of
applying the same coding standards to the test suites as I do to the
rest of the code.
OK, Lazy Web, who's going to write Test::Test::Perl::Critic?
:-)
Any tips on what - other than comprehensiveness,
- Original Message
From: Shlomi Fish
> Switching to TAPx::Parser::Iterator :
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~ovid/TAPx-Parser-0.30/lib/TAPx/Parser/Iterator.pm
>
> Solved this problem.
>
> However, the TAPx::Parser::Iterator POD says:
>
> "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY!".
Can you send m
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 15:03, Ovid wrote:
> - Original Message
> From: Shlomi Fish
>
> > Switching to TAPx::Parser::Iterator :
> >
> > http://search.cpan.org/~ovid/TAPx-Parser-0.30/lib/TAPx/Parser/Iterator.pm
> >
> > Solved this problem.
> >
> > However, the TAPx::Parser::Iterator PO
On Sep 19, 2006, at 7:00 AM, David Golden wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
clearly. So my attempt to make my tests good will mostly consist
of applying the same coding standards to the test suites as I do
to the rest of the code.
OK, Lazy Web, who's going to write Test::Test::Perl::Critic?
:
- Original Message
From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>my $parser =
>TAPx::Parser->new(
>{
>stream => TAPx::Parser::Iterator->new($test_output_orig),
>}
>);
I'd recommend trying this:
my $parser = TAPx::Parser->new( { sour
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-18 13:15]:
> In Regexp::Common's case the tests are almost entirely
> generated so fixing them would be easy.
No way. Abigail lovingly hand-crafted every last one of those
240,000 tests (or whatever insane number it was last time I
looked). :-)
Reg
David Cantrell wrote:
> What do people think are *good* tests?
Good tests catch bugs.
This might seem obvious and its probably not what you were asking for, but
you'd be surprised at how often its forgotten in worries about code coverage,
style issues, setup, teardown, portability, black box, g
It comes down to this:
SKIP tests are for when it'll never work. Or if you don't care.
TODO tests allow the author to be notified when something that was broken
starts working again. It doesn't matter what that thing is.
If a module you depend on breaks and you want to know when it works agai
12 matches
Mail list logo
