Re: Test::More::diag()

Hi, Newbie with Test::More --- and loving it :-) on 10/12/01 12:04 pm, Michael G Schwern at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Its been on the Test::More todo list to have a blessed way to do: > > print STDOUT "# here's some extra info\n"; > > I'm planning on using diag(). > > ok( $foo == $bar ) ||

Test::Exception... comments?

Hi all, I've been refactoring a bunch of old tests with Test::More and some convenience routines for testing exceptions dropped out (along with some class base testing and mock object modules which still need cleaning up into something sane.) dies_ok BLOCK TEST_NAME Tests to see that

Re: Test::Exception... comments?

on 9/4/02 10:16 pm, Michael G Schwern at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > You probably want to guarantee that $@ will be how it died so you can do: > > dies_ok { div(1,0) } 'div by zero'; > like( $@, qr/^Illegal division by zero/ ); > > Even though you can use throws_ok(), the dies_ok() + $@ co

Re: Test::Exception... comments?

d, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:03:27AM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Adrian Howard wrote: >> >>> Any comments before I throw it at CPAN? Sound vaguely sane? >> >> throws_ok can take either a class name or a Regexp ref as an argument to >> compare again

Re: Test::Exception... comments?

on 10/4/02 11:10 pm, Michael G Schwern at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:57:09PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: >> Hmmm... All seems sensible. Patch attached for Builder.pm that adds a >> _may_be_regex method. Okay? > > Except it should be public (if Tes

Re: Test::Exception... comments?

est_args) succeeded"; is_deeply(\@results, $test_results, "method(@$test_args) = (@$test_results)"); }; The sequence of tests was stateless --- one test failing didn't invalidate the other test cases. Running them all rather than exiting the test script after a sing

Re: Pondering Test::Depend

o swap mock/live objects by subclassing and/or configuration options. Once I started writing decent functional tests, my hack to track changed methods suddenly ceased being useful. I think you may find the same thing occurring with Test::Depend - it will just encourage you to write more functional tests ;-) Cheers, Adrian -- Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: 01929 550720 fax: 0870 131 3033 www.quietstars.com

Re: Pondering Test::Depend

On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 02:59 am, chromatic wrote: > On Saturday 08 June 2002 17:32, Adrian Howard wrote: > >> I eventually just bit the bullet and started writing more functional >> tests. This (of course) had the usual affect of writing more tests --- >> it

Test::Class... comments?

neatest solution to the inheritance problem mentioned in the documentation. How offensive do people find this, and is there a better solution? The obvious alternative (you supply the package of the method you want to affect) makes refactoring harder since you have to remember to update the package

Fwd: Test::Class... comments?

Oops... forgot to CC to group. Adrian. Begin forwarded message: > From: Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun Jun 16, 2002 08:25:37 pm Europe/London > To: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Test::Class... comments? > > On Sunday, June 1

Re: RFC: Test::Warn

On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 03:21 pm, Janek Schleicher wrote: > Hello! > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Adrian Howard wrote: > >> Nothing like it AFAIK - sounds useful. I've got places where I'm doing >> this sort of thing, but I slurp up STDERR rather than wrapping &

Re: Testing failure in Test::Builder-based modules

On Saturday, August 3, 2002, at 09:56 pm, Andy Lester wrote: > I'm adding some tests to Test::HTML::Lint, and one of the things that I > want to check for is that "html_ok(undef)" fails. Remember that > html_ok() is a T::B-based module. [snip] Take a look at Test::Builder::Tester. Something li

Re: Add Test::Harness 2.x Prerequisite to Test::Simple?

On Saturday, August 24, 2002, at 11:08 pm, chromatic wrote: > I've been using Test::Exception on a project and am very glad to have > it. I > ran into a small issue trying to install it, though: it has TODO tests, > but > those failed as the existing version of Test::Harness (1.26 or so) did

Re: Add Test::Harness 2.x Prerequisite to Test::Simple?

On Monday, August 26, 2002, at 08:22 am, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 12:48:45AM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: >> I've added a patch to Test::Exception (should have spotted that... >> *bad* >> Adrian :-). It should be hitting CPAN in the next few

Re: Test::Class weirdness

@; }; }; Test::Class->runtests( @TEST_CLASSES ); Can you pass on the version # of Attribute::Handlers & UNIVERSAL::require you're using - since it's failing silently for me, rather than giving the error... will investigate further. Adrian -- Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: 01929 550720 fax: 0870 131 3033 www.quietstars.com

Re: Test::Class weirdness

Hi all, On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 05:04 pm, Tony Bowden wrote: [snip] > use Test::Class; > use UNIVERSAL::require; > > my @tests = qw( Example::Test Another::Test ); > foreach my $class (@tests) { > $class->require or die "Can't require $class"; > } > Test::Class-

Test::Class - comments wanted

Hi all, There's been a new version of Test::Class coming 'real soon' for a few months now :-) Amongst the bug fixes and extensions I've been considering a couple of changes that I'm not 100% on and would appreciate any comments / feedback / abuse on offer... it's late so apologies if this makes

Re: callbacks at the end of Test::More ?

On Saturday, October 26, 2002, at 04:22 pm, Nicholas Clark wrote: [snip] However, I'd like to be able to cleanly print out my random number seed to STDERR (or whatever Test::Builder's correct name for this is) if it believes that any tests have failed, and I can't see a clean way to do this. Whe

Re: And for the mod_perl folks... Test::Builder->reset

On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 01:40 am, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:31:43AM +, Mark Fowler wrote: Test::Builder->new would remain as a singleton. We'd just provide an alternate constructor to provide a second object if someone really wants it. You know, that

Re: Test::Builder->level

On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 04:10 am, Michael G Schwern wrote: At YAPC::Europe there was some discussion about Test::Builder->level, $Test::Builder::Level and the fact that they don't really work well as implemented. I know we reached some sort of consensus about how to do it better, but

Re: Test::Builder->level

On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 08:37 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:21:38PM +, Adrian Howard wrote: At YAPC::Europe there was some discussion about Test::Builder->level, $Test::Builder::Level and the fact that they don't really work well as impleme

Re: Changing T::B behavior

On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 08:54 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: [snip] I think I'll merge your $Test::Builder::default idea with this. Have a stack of Test::Builder objects rather than just the states. This way you can do something like the above. If you add a $tb->copy method which ret

Re: Graphically depicting coverage vs. test results

Ah. Confusion of vocab. You're talking about the order of the test scripts rather than the order of tests run by those scripts. Yes? I think Tony was talking about the order of tests. While key test scripts tend to be run earlier in some setups, I'm not sure that's it going to be a useful disti

Re: STDERR tests in Test::Warn?

I'd argue that Test::Warn isn't the right place :-) To me sending output to STDERR and warnings are different things. If added to Test::Warn I'd argue for separate functions. I've had situations where warnings were logged, and STDERR was meant for user readable output. Having them merged would

Re: Test::More::is_deeply problems with blessings and stringified refs

I'd go for feature, not bug. For me is_deeply has always been for testing structure. We have isa_ok for checking class identity. Having one that tested for both might be useful, but I would not change the behaviour of is_deeply. Adrian On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 05:32 pm, Fergal Daly

Re: Test::More::is_deeply problems with blessings and stringified refs

On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 09:21 pm, Fergal Daly wrote: On Thursday 27 February 2003 20:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:32:42PM +, Fergal Daly wrote: I think that although a test that ignores blessed classes could be handy in some circumstances (ie programming

Re: Test::Set

Nice. Comments: - I'd prefer is_set rather than is_math_set - I'd like shallow comparison options as well as deep ones. Most of the time I'm interested in object identity rather than structural equality. Maybe have: is_bag, is_set, is_deep_bag, is_deep_set - I'm not sure that ignoring duplica

Re: STDERR tests in Test::Warn?

Jeez! These people with free time :-) ;-) On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 04:00 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:52AM +, Adrian Howard wrote: I always meant to revisit the idea for Test::Output which was intended to be a generic FILEHANDLE output testing module

Re: Test::More::is_deeply problems with blessings and stringified refs

True. I usually expose "deep" objects by methods rather than hash access, so it's not really a problem for the majority of my code. Adrian On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 03:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:51:07AM +, Adrian Howard wrot

Re: Using environment variables to control long running tests

On Sunday, June 1, 2003, at 08:43 am, Andrew Savige wrote: Merlyn's use perl journal of April 29, 2003: http://use.perl.org/~merlyn/journal/ suggests using environment variables to spare the installer of CPAN modules a long wait while running 'make test'. One reply noted that DBD, HTML::Mason an

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Warn::None 0.02

On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 07:53 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: Consider the following. use Test::More; use Test::Warn::None; plan tests => 42; To make this work I'd have to overhaul the internal Test::Builder planning sy

Re: blocks and subplans again

I could throw up a Wiki somewhere if people think it would be useful (I've been looking for an excuse to play with CGI::Kwiki). (IRC is to scary a time sink for me ;-) Adrian On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 07:14 pm, Fergal Daly wrote: On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:56, Andy Lester wrote: This

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Warn::None 0.02

Hiya, On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 07:09 pm, Fergal Daly wrote: On Wednesday 25 June 2003 17:49, Adrian Howard wrote: The thread from the start of May about having optional / extendable plans supported by Test::Harness would seem to be a good match for this feature. http

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Warn::None 0.02

On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:07 pm, Fergal Daly wrote: On Wednesday 25 June 2003 20:15, Adrian Howard wrote: Add an explicit "test script finished" footer? But how does the footer-adder know that the correct number of tests ran. You would need to declare a plan to run x additional

Re: Blurring the line between assertions and tests

On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 09:07 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: [snip] I was thinking about inline testing, Test::Class and such and how it would be nice if we could just write test functions right in our code, like assertions. Like Carp::Assert::More, but I want all the Test:: stuff available.

Re: Blurring the line between assertions and tests

On Saturday, August 2, 2003, at 01:03 am, Michael G Schwern wrote: Class::Contract has always bothered me as way too much Kool-Aid to drink in one sitting. I completely agree. Having the ability to apply pre/post/invariant functionality to normal Perl classes has been on my to do list for years

Re: Existing books on testing?

Three I would thoroughly recommend, although not Perl related in any way, are: Lessons Learned in Software Testing: a Context-driven Approach   Cem Kaner, James Bach Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Inc; ISBN: 0471081124 Testing Extreme Programming  

Re: Existing books on testing?

On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 06:49 pm, Kurt Starsinic wrote: [snip] Worth being familiar with. Very practical. If anybody knows a good book on Junit (if there is such a thing, HHOS), I would love to know about it. "Unit Testing in Java: How Tests Drive the Code" by Johannes Link & Peter F

Re: Scrutinizing CPAN distributions (was Testing for valid path names...)

On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 05:31 pm, Tels wrote: I didn't even know that cpanratings exists! Wow! But why, by Seline Moonbow, does this site need a login just to show me a rating? Taken a look at search.cpan.org recently then? For example: http://search.cpan.org/author/MBARBON/Module-Info-

Re: Existing books on testing?

On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 02:24 pm, Adam Turoff wrote: [snip] In _Software Craftsmanship_, Pete McBreen has high praise for: The Craft of Software Testing Brian Marick Prentice Hall It's out of print and nearly impossible to find. I haven't read it yet, so I can't

Re: blocks and subplans again

On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 11:52 am, Michael G Schwern wrote: [snip] I've yet to see a real use-case for plans of plans. [snip] Anywhere when you want to have plans at a higher level of granularity than a test script. For example in Test::Class I can say: sub pig_flying : Test(2) {

Re: blocks and subplans again

On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 08:17 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: [snip] You could allow extensions at any time but then you lose the ability to know if you ran 4 + 2 tests or 5 + 1, Not if you introduce an end tag (though I'd rather

Re: blocks and subplans again

On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 11:50 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:19:35PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: [snip] Also you can allocate a sub block to each thread and you don't have to worry about it's output getting confused with the output of any other thread because ever

Re: Test::More and 'deep' tests

On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 10:52 Europe/London, Tony Bowden wrote: [snip] 1) ok $str1 eq $str2; 2) is $str1, $str2; 3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2]; 4) is_deeply $str1, $str2; All should pass as far as I am concerned. The Test::More deeply behaviour matches my intuitions, and I would have tests th

Re: passing arguments to tests

On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 16:38 Europe/London, Ovid wrote: --- Andrew Savige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh, that 'grind' looks like a very handy command but I'm a bit confused about how you use it. Is it just a handy general-purpose command or do you use it specifically as part of "make te

Re: Phalanx / CPANTS / Kwalitee

On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 11:09 Europe/London, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: Thomas Klausner wrote: there are currently 4 dists on CPAN that only include a configure script (makepp-1.19, glist-0.9.17a10, swig1.1p5, shufflestat-0.0.3) 179 do not include any of Makefile.PL, Build.PL or configu

Re: Trying to spear a phalanx shield for pod

On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 14:23 Europe/London, Andrew Savige wrote: I'm about to add a POD test program to my phalanx distro. Before I do that, just want to check I'm using the best model. I plan on using the one from WWW::Mechanize (shown below) -- unless someone can suggest a better model. [sn

Re: Trying to spear a phalanx shield for pod

On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 23:48 Europe/London, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 08:17:24PM +, Adrian Howard wrote: This may be a dim question but why scan blib and lib? [snip] my $blib = File::Spec->catfile(qw(blib lib)); [snip] That's not blib and lib, that&#

Re: Testing complex web site

On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 06:10 pm, Gabor Szabo wrote: If this is OT, please point me to some better place to find an answer. [snip] Not OT in my opinion, but you also might want to try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TestFirstUserInterfaces. On the functional level: Basic things can be ac

"Default" test name?

Hi all, I've just got around to adding default test names to Test::Class by wrapping Test::Builder:ok so doing: define correct_answer : Test { is $answer, 42 }; will produce ok 1 - correct_answer This seems to work just dandy. However, I was wondering if anybody else ever wanted to do this

Re: "Default" test name?

On Monday, February 2, 2004, at 11:53 pm, chromatic wrote: On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 15:46, Adrian Howard wrote: [snip] I'd rather print less if I don't really care what the name is, though I don't feel exceedingly strongly that way. It just seems that a default test name is there

Re: "Default" test name?

On Tuesday, February 3, 2004, at 12:26 am, Michael G Schwern wrote: [snip] In the Test::Class context, the default name would extend only to a given test method. So you could have a default name which is, for example, the name of the test method. Or something like, "testing X feature". [snip]

Re: ok(1,1) vs. ok ('foo','foo') in Test::More

On Tuesday, February 3, 2004, at 05:44 pm, Tels wrote: [snip] This has prevented me from "converting" several huge old testsuites from "use Test;" to "use Test::More;" because I know that I would then have to go and add testnames to thousand of tests (e.g. all tests that test for number output).

Re: Distributed testing idea

On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 09:24 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: The biggest time suck in developing MakeMaker, and to a lesser extent Test::More, is running the tests. Why? Because they need to be run on lots of different platforms with lots of different versions of Perl. Currently, I do

Re: Aborting testsuits

On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 02:40 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: [snip] Is there a way to abort a whole testsuite? [snip] Yup. Take a look at BAILOUT in Test::Builder. Doing: Test::More->builder->BAILOUT should stop Test::Harness in its tracks. Adrian

Re: Aborting testsuits

No idea :-) Mr Schwern? Adrian On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 07:04 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: Hi! On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:01:54PM +, Adrian Howard wrote: On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 02:40 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: [snip] Is there a way to abort a whole testsuite? [snip] Yup

Re: Aborting testsuits

On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 10:46 PM, Andy Lester wrote: Because it is, in Test::More. I've yet to need it. Nobody's given me a patch to implement it. And T::H doesn't recognize anything like that either? From perldoc test::Harness =item B As an emergency measure, a test script can decid

Re: testers.cpan.org ideas

On 9 Mar 2004, at 13:14, Leon Brocard wrote: [snip] Does anyone have any features they'd like to see on the website? I'm looking at extracting more information (Perl version, platform) and having pages (and thus RSS) per author. RSS feeds would be *very* nice :-) Adrian

Re: testers.cpan.org ideas

On 9 Mar 2004, at 13:35, Leon Brocard wrote: Adrian Howard sent the following bits through the ether: RSS feeds would be *very* nice :-) Easy request to fulfill - it already does has an RSS feed per distribution. The bottom of http://testers.cpan.org/show/Test-Exception.html points out: http

Re: Duplicated code

On 19 Apr 2004, at 21:03, Ovid wrote: As part of our refactoring project, we'd like to find duplicated code. Our hand-rolled scripts do a decent job, but could use a lot of work. Rather than do a lot of work, I'm curious to know if anyone knows of any tools already out there for that. Any su

Re: Temporarily Overriding subs

On 25 May 2004, at 18:31, Ovid wrote: [snip] So I wrote a little module, Sub::Override, to do that for me. I can replace subs, explicitly restore them to their original value or just let the object fall out of scope and have the subs automatically restored. However, this seems like such an obvi

Re: empty tests, Test::Harness, and Test::Inline

On 11 Jun 2004, at 19:16, Andrew Pimlott wrote: [snip] 1. pod2test exits with status 1 when there are no tests. This is simple to work around, and you could argue that pod2test is right to throw up a flag for this degenerate case, but I actually think it is more useful to accept it

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 24 Jun 2004, at 07:09, Piers Cawley wrote: [snip] The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test isolation than Test::More does (but you have to remember that what Test::More thinks of as a test, xUnit thinks of as an assertion to be used *in* a test). To be fair to Test::Mor

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 24 Jun 2004, at 20:19, Andrew Pimlott wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: Where xUnit wins for me are in the normal places where OO is useful (abstraction, reuse, revealing intention, etc.). Since you've thought about this, and obviously don't believ

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 24 Jun 2004, at 21:41, Ovid wrote: [snip] I also like the thought of inheriting tests, but I know not everyone is fond of this idea. There was a moderately interesting discussion about this on Perlmonks: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=294571 [snip] Yeah, I meant to contribute to tha

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:10, Andrew Pimlott wrote: [snip] I thought the "isolation" principle that people were talking about is that before every test, a "setup" method is called, and after every test a "teardown" is called, automatically by the test harness. This seems to require one method == one

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 24 Jun 2004, at 21:10, Tony Bowden wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:59:30PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that - You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests. Those that need different things aren't testing the same

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 25 Jun 2004, at 20:18, Andy Lester wrote: Repetition is good. I feel very strongly that you should be checking your constructor results in every single test, and checked against literals, not variables. I'm not complaining about repetitive tests, and I agree with what you said about testing co

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 24 Jun 2004, at 19:59, Andrew Pimlott wrote: [snip] - You don't have much control (correct me if I'm wrong) about the order of tests, or the relationship between tests, eg you can't say "if this test fails, skip these others". This is straightforward in Test::More's simple procedural sty

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:51, Fergal Daly wrote: [snip] NB: I haven't used xUnit style testing so I could be completely off the mark but some (not all) of these benefits seem to be available in T::M land. Just so I'm clear - I'm /not/ saying any of this is impossible with T::M and friends. That's obv

Re: C/C++ White-Box Unit Testing and Test::More

On 26 Jun 2004, at 12:51, Fergal Daly wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: [snip] What xUnit gives you is a little bit more infrastructure to make these sorts of task easier. That's fair enough but that infrastructure is just extra baggage in some cases. True

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple 0.48_02

On 19 Jul 2004, at 07:25, Michael G Schwern wrote: [snip] There's a new feature. When run under Test::Harness diagnostic output will throw in a leading newline for better readability. [snip] Which causes anything testing test diagnostic output with Test::Builder::Tester to fall over. Test::Class

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple 0.48_02

On 19 Jul 2004, at 20:30, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Adrian Howard wrote: My temptation is to say the new behaviour is the right one and patch T::B::T and friends? The version of TBT in my subversion repository[1] now twiddles the HARNESS_ACTIVE ENV variable off when it's colle

Little lost wiki...

The Perl QA Wiki linked to from as eventually ends up as a 403 at . Dead or just resting? Adrian

Re: Little lost wiki...

On 1 Aug 2004, at 21:46, Andy Lester wrote: The Perl QA Wiki linked to from as eventually ends up as a 403 at . Probably dead, because Ingy was to set up qa

Re: Test::Harness with modules that output to STDOUT

On 24 Aug 2004, at 16:04, Peter Kay wrote: I am attempting to write tests (using whichever Tests::...) for a module that will use Test::Harness. The module outputs to STDOUT (it just does). You might find http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01690.html of interest. [snip] So far,

Re: Hello

On 21 Jan 2005, at 17:09, Andy Lester wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 05:00:09PM +, GlennH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I read about the Phalanx project on the yahoo Agile Testing group and thought I'd sign up the mailing list and skulk in the background. I'm a Do you have a mention of what was

Whither the perl-qa wiki ?

I've just noticed that the perl-qa wiki linked from http://qa.perl.org/ is still toast. I seem to remember somebody (Andy ?) saying that a something-or-other.kwiki.org was in the process of being set up to replace it. Is my terrible memory playing it's usual tricks or has it popped into existe

Re: Whither the perl-qa wiki ?

My impression was that was for Phalanx people, rather than perl-qa in general ? Adrian On 31 Jan 2005, at 18:10, Shawn Carroll wrote: http://phalanx.kwiki.org/ On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:51:22 +, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've just noticed that the perl-qa wiki linked

Re: Whither the perl-qa wiki ?

On 31 Jan 2005, at 21:18, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 04:07:04PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote: So I may as well do that now. Done. Let me know if that seems like its the right database, there were several to choose from owing to circumstances. Fantastic - I'll go have a pok

Re: hello all

On 1 Feb 2005, at 16:30, Shaun Fryer wrote: [snip] Hello! Hello right back at ya :-) Adrian

Re: Test::Unit, ::Class, or ::Inline?

Belated response... On 26 Jan 2005, at 20:18, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Ian Langworth wrote: I'm taking a software development class this semester which will involve writing extensive object-oriented code. My partner and I are trying to decide whether to us

Re: Test::Unit, ::Class, or ::Inline?

On 7 Feb 2005, at 21:13, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:03:29PM +, Adrian Howard wrote: Test::Unit, as mentioned by Curtis, has been abandoned. Has it? I thought that the folk on [EMAIL PROTECTED] had taken it on ? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PerlUnit/ shows some

Re: Testing What Was Printed

On 11 Feb 2005, at 19:52, Shawn Sorichetti wrote: [snip] I've started working on Test::Output that is based on Schwern's TieOut module that comes with Test::More. I'm hoping to have it released on CPAN later tonight. Test::Output is a self contained so that it can be included with other modules

Online testing course materials

While not exactly Perl related Cem Kaner & James Bach are in the process of putting up all of the course material for their "Black Box Software Testing". Lots of interesting material. for those who've not come across it already. Cheers, Adrian

Re: Talk: Why You Really Want To Write Tests

On 4 Mar 2005, at 17:15, Michael G Schwern wrote: [snip] There's not nearly enough references, particularly when I expect the audience to go out and work things out on their own. I still can't think of a decent testing book nor tutorial to recommend. Test::Tutorial leaves the reader at a dead

Re: Talk: Why You Really Want To Write Tests

On 22 Mar 2005, at 19:11, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:28:21PM +, Adrian Howard wrote: I can't believe you didn't stick a reference to the perl-qa list there :-) The audience was not Perl programmers. Primarily Haskell and Java. A few people expressed intere

Re: TestSimple/More/Builder in JavaScript

On 7 Apr 2005, at 19:23, David Wheeler wrote: Greetings fellow Perlers, I'm pleased to announce the first alpha release of my port of TestSimple/More/Builder to JavaScript. You can download it from: http://www.justatheory.com/downloads/TestBuilder-0.01.tar.gz [snip] You rock! Excellent stuff. O

Re: TestSimple/More/Builder in JavaScript

On 7 Apr 2005, at 20:27, David Wheeler wrote: [snip] Besides, I'm sure that Adrian will soon take my code to port Test::Class to JavaScript, and then we can have both approaches! ;-) I did once hack JSUnit to output TAP - so you never know :-) Adrian

Re: Test automation with perl.

On 13 Apr 2005, at 09:27, suresh babu wrote: I need some example projects(not web applications) which uses perl to develop test suites and automate testing requirements. May be some pointers or source forge where i can get information on such projects. Most things on CPAN will have a Perl test su

Re: Test::Expect

On 14 Apr 2005, at 11:36, Leon Brocard wrote: Oh, I forgot to mention to perl-qa that I wrote Test::Expect: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Expect/ It's nice. Already used it :-) Adrian

Re: Test automation with perl.

On 14 Apr 2005, at 08:43, suresh babu wrote: Hi Experts, I would like to reiterate my request. [snip] Did you not read the replies? http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.qa/4079 http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.qa/4081 Adrian

Re: Kwalitee and has_test_*

On 17 Apr 2005, at 11:09, Tony Bowden wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:24:01AM +, Smylers wrote: Negative quality for anybody who includes a literal tab character anywhere in the distro's source! Negative quality for anyone whose files appear to have been edited in emacs! Ow! Coffee snorted do

Re: Kwalitee and has_test_*

On 17 Apr 2005, at 13:47, David A. Golden wrote: [snip] 2) A metric to estimate the quality of a distribution for authors to compare their work against a subjective standard in the hopes that authors strive to improve their Kwalitee scores. In this model, faking Kwalitee is irrelevant, because

Re: Module and package version numbering

On 18 Apr 2005, at 17:03, David Cantrell wrote: [snip] Number::Phone::UK::Data - no version, this is where the .0004 comes from though. It has no version number because the entire file is generated from a *really* dumb

Re: Module and package version numbering

On 19 Apr 2005, at 11:40, David Cantrell wrote: [snip] The script that generates it doesn't change. The data that it mangles into a module is the bit that changes. Can you add a version number to the data? So I'll take the suggestion of putting MMDD into a version number. But then wasn't the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.59_01

On 27 Apr 2005, at 06:03, Michael G Schwern wrote: [snip] This finally allows one to create a second Test::Builder object via Test::Builder->create. Authors of modules which test testing modules may now rejoice, you can use Test::Builder to test Test::Builder! Neato! Adrian

Re: verbose diagnostics

On 28 Apr 2005, at 14:23, Paul Johnson wrote: Using Test::More, I would like to send some diagnostics to be seen only when the harness is running in verbose mode. [snip] diag "some verbose diagnostics" if $ENV{TEST_VERBOSE}; ? Adrian

Fwd: [agile-testing] ANNOUNCE: New version of Perl port of Fit.

Since it seems to have been announced everywhere but here, I thought folks might be interested in this. Adrian Begin forwarded message: From: Tony Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 28 April 2005 09:52:09 BST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [agile-testing] ANN

Re: ANN: JavaScript TestSimple 0.03

On 4 May 2005, at 01:14, David Wheeler wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 14:27 , Joe McMahon wrote: Here's a weird idea: how about the option of AJAXing the test harness results back to a receiving server somewhere that understands TAP? Bingo: TAP testing of JS embedded in web pages in its native habitat

  1   2   3   >