(ergh, let's try this again from the right address)
I'm not sure where's the best place to post this, but I imagine perl-qa
might be a good start. Please let me know if it's the wrong place.
I've been messing with various testing modules that I learnt about at
YAPC, and I'm unclear about someth
I'm not sure where's the best place to post this, but I imagine perl-qa
might be a good start. Please let me know if it's the wrong place.
I've been messing with various testing modules that I learnt about at
YAPC, and I'm unclear about something.
use Test::More no_plan;
ok( nonblank("abc")
In lists.projects.perl.perl-qa, you wrote:
>I am not a newcomer to this list, just a squatter and I have been
>programming Perl for about a year now (and lovin' every minute of it). After
>reading all the postings on this list about Test::Simple, etc... I was
>wondering, are there any (or plans to
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:42:29PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
|
| I assume you're talking about "make test"? Test::Harness in
| non-verbose mode (ie. "make test") won't display any of that info. If
| you set $verbose = 1 you'll see all the test output. For failed tests
| it will just repo
Schwern wrote:
>
>Dangermouse
>
>We watched Dangermouse, The Avenging Disco Godfather and probably too
>much Monty Python for our own good. Put yo' WEIGHT on it!
I can see how Danger Mouse might be considered quality, but Avenging
Disco Godfather? No way.
>Adam Turoff gave a talk about stealin
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 07:56:30PM -0400, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert wrote:
>> This script...
>
>Nifty, mind if I assimilate it as an example script?
Not at all. Credit as Kirrily "Skud" Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> please.
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - h
Now winging its way towards CPAN mirrors worldwide.
I've implemented it pretty much as described the other day.
Comments etc welcome.
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://infotrope.net/
"Sure, only 2 percent of the Internet population uses lynx, but they're
the top 2 perc
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>Will do.
No! Read on! It's been done already.
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://infotrope.net/
Any sufficiently fucked-up technology is indistinguishable from magic.
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>>
>> eval { ...code... };
>> is( $@, '' );
>
>Yeah, except that doesn't print out $@ in case of failure. If I'm
>checking that no exception occurs I want to know what the exception is
>when it happens.
But it does! It says something like:
not ok 23
# Failed
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>So like I said, either tests are habitually failing on vmsperl, or
>nobody's compiled Perl on OS/390 in a long time (I wouldn't be
>surprised if that were true).
I assume you mean "MVS"?
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://infotrope.net/
We have onl
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>
>If someone would be so kind as to fill in TestTutorial from the latest
>version of Test::Tutorial?
Done.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://infotrope.net/
"Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer."
-- Peter da Silva
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:41:39 -0400
>Kirrily 'Skud' Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Anyone know what might cause this? The same reporter also had the same
>> problem with CPAN-Test-Reporter.
>
>His Test::Harness needs upgrade?
Yeah, I guess that'd be it.
K.
--
Ki
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:35:49AM -0400, Shane Landrum wrote:
>> So, I've just found Test::Harness::Straps--- thanks to Skud
>> for pointing me in the right direction. Anyone else using it?
>> I'm working on using it to write a web-based test summarizer
>> for my users.
>
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:10:33PM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Debian has the beginnings of that. perl-base is the minimum necessary
>> > to have a useful Perl, basically a binary, the perl man page, and a
>> > handful
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>Candidates for this sort of thing would be CGI::Test, Test::Cmd,
>Test::Unit, Test::Mail and ExtUtils::TBone. And, of course, Barrie's
>Test::Differences.
Actually, Test::Mail doesn't work like that. It's more or less a
wrapper around Test::More that handles incoming ema
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>I think I have a solution to the rigidity of is(). ie. something with
>the diagnostic output of is(), but the flexibility of ok().
>It all makes sense, so what I really need is a better name.
How about:
compare($foo, "<=", $bar)
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL P
Does anyone else find that SKIP: { } blocks bugger up the debugger?
I'll be happily bouncing on the "n" key to get to round about the
vicinity of the failing test, and then blam, it sees a skipped test
and just fast-forwards to the end.
K.
--
Kirrily Robert
[EMAIL
I'm with Aristotle. I think it's an urge that's come out of the
development community -- specifically, *certain* development
communities -- rather than from an end-user desire for quality. Many
of the best -tested pieces of software are the infrastructure type
things that only developers
I believe the thing that generates the coverage reports
currently is C code or something? So isn't there anything CPANish to
do this?
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://infotrope.net/
There were some people talking about problems with it the other day
(Thursday?) on magnet #perl. I think Adam Kennedy mentioned slowness,
and Jesse was around at the time and sounded like he was going to look
into it. Yeah, I know, vague.
K.
Does anyone here understand "fixtures" as a testing concept, and could
they please explain it to me in a Perlish way?
At least half of what I've heard described is what I usually achieve
with a t/data/ directory, and another half is what I'd do by writing a
specialized Test::Builder-based mod
Thanks all, especially Ovid who came closest to answering the actual
question, i.e. can someone explain it to me *in a perlish way*. Ovid's
example used Test::Class's setup/teardown; would anyone else be able to
provide confirm that I'm making sense in the following
Test::Harness/Test::More style
We've got a situation where we have a suite of tests for a web app. It
starts of testing the lib/ and whatnot, but eventually gets to the point
where it uses Test::WWW::Mechanize to go fetch stuff from the
developer's sandbox website and do a sanity check on the web application
itself.
The pro
e it with a new version that says
"Don't use me."
K.
--
Kirrily Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://infotrope.nethttp://search.cpan.org/author/SKUD
e it with a new version that says
"Don't use me."
K.
--
Kirrily Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://infotrope.nethttp://search.cpan.org/author/SKUD
25 matches
Mail list logo
