- Original Message
> From: Michael G Schwern
>
> Ovid wrote:
> > First feature request: automatic Moose support to build random data which
> > conforms to Moose constraints :) (Yes, I know it's much, much harder than
> it sounds).
>
> Hello, what?
package Person;
use Moose;
h
On 29 Jun 2009, at 21:21, Gabor Szabo wrote:
When running tests with prove -a file.tar.gz it nicely creates the
archive file
but if the test bails out the archive file is not created at all.
Is this a feature or a bug ?
Bug I'd say...
--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
Ovid wrote:
> use Test::Sims::Moose 'random';
>
> Person->new(
> name => random('Person.name'),
> age => random('Person.age')
> );
>
> And that would potentially have issues when it assigns "\t" to $name and -12
> to $age
> , even those are both valid values for t
(Helps if I send this from a subscribed address):
From http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/39193
The latest developer release of Test::More allows subtests. Subtests are great
in that they solve a lot of problems in advanced Perl testing, but they have
required a change in Test::Builder. Previo
>From http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/39193
The latest developer release of Test::More allows subtests. Subtests are great
in that they solve a lot of
problems in advanced Perl testing, but they have required a change in
Test::Builder. Previously you could do stuff like this:
package Test::
* Ovid [2009-06-30T10:21:24]
> The latest developer release of Test::More allows subtests. Subtests are
> great in that they solve a lot of problems in advanced Perl testing, but they
> have required a change in Test::Builder. Previously you could do stuff like
> this:
I updated my Test:: librar
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Ovid wrote:
> my $BUILDER = Test::Builder->new;
I'm running visitcpan to generate a list of offenders now. Results posted soon.
-- David
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM, David Golden wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Ovid wrote:
>> my $BUILDER = Test::Builder->new;
>
> I'm running visitcpan to generate a list of offenders now. Results posted
> soon.
And here we go: http://echo.dagolden.com/~xdg/2009-06-30-test-builde
- Original Message
> From: Ricardo SIGNES
>
> I updated my Test:: libraries to Test::Builder->new in their test routines,
> instead, as that's what I thought the original wisdom was. Is that still
> okay? (I did not add subtest-specific tests.)
>
> That is, I turned:
>
> my $TEST
On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:13 AM, Ovid wrote:
And that would potentially have issues when it assigns "\t" to $name
and -12 to $age, even those are both valid values for the types in
question. It would be very difficult to find data which
automatically fits any random type, but it could be writ
Part of the problem with have with 'Test::More' and friends is that there's not
an easy way to attach diagnostics to any test. This is largely because the
interface is set in stone. So I was thinking about a rewritten test interface
which allows something like this (this code actually works,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Ovid wrote:
> Thoughts? Am I totally smoking crack here? If there's a clean way to
> shoehorn diagnostics on the Test::More-style interface, I guess that would be
> ok.
Doesn't Test::Builder2 address this? I'd rather see more energy
directed at getting that do
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ovid wrote:
>
> Part of the problem with have with 'Test::More' and friends is that there's
> not an easy way to attach diagnostics to any test. This is largely because
> the interface is set in stone. So I was thinking about a rewritten test
> interface which
- Original Message
> From: David Golden
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Ovidwrote:
> > Thoughts? Am I totally smoking crack here? If there's a clean way to
> shoehorn diagnostics on the Test::More-style interface, I guess that would be
> ok.
>
> Doesn't Test::Builder2 address
I forgot to hit 'reply all' :)
Also, I had considered this:
have $some_value, assuming { shift > 7 }, reason "Argument must be greater
than 7";
And that would allow us to naturally put complex constraints onto the values.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catal
Ovid wrote:
use Test::Fluent 'no_plan';
my ( $have, $want ) = ( 1, 1 );
have $have, want $want, reason 'Some test name';
have [ 3, 4 ], want [ 4, 5 ], reason 'cuz I said so'; # fails
true 3, reason '3 had better be true';
false 3, reason '3 had better still better be
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ovid wrote:
> Also, I think playing around with more fluent interfaces is a good idea. If
> my interface is great, why not? If it's bad, what would people *love* to see
> in a test interface which allows them to naturally write tests?
Well, if you're doing inte
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:46 PM, David Golden wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ovid wrote:
>> Also, I think playing around with more fluent interfaces is a good idea. If
>> my interface is great, why not? If it's bad, what would people *love* to
>> see in a test interface which allows
18 matches
Mail list logo
