On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:39:26PM -0700, Zach Lipton wrote:
> I'll see what I can do with Net::Ping. I don't really know what CPAN::Nox
> does, but I'll take a look at that as well. At the very least, I'll do a
> compile test for it and have a framework for more tests.
CPAN::Nox is just CPAN wit
I'll see what I can do with Net::Ping. I don't really know what CPAN::Nox
does, but I'll take a look at that as well. At the very least, I'll do a
compile test for it and have a framework for more tests.
Zach
On 9/2/01 9:29 PM, "Michael G Schwern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok-doke. Nibbling
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The ones that bother me are the Pod::* tests. I know Pod::Parser's CPAN
> version has tests. Pod::Text & Pod::Man (the podulators),
> unfortunately, do not. Pod::LaTeX only has a compile test.
I'd love it if someone would generalize the Pod::Par
Ok-doke. Nibbling away. Andrew Wilson is plowing through CGI::*.
He's got a CGI::Carp test in the works. Alexander Gough did
File::Compare a few months ago. Gelly got Shell.
The ones that bother me are the Pod::* tests. I know Pod::Parser's
CPAN version has tests. Pod::Text & Pod::Man (the
Andrew Wilson wrote up tests for CGI::Switch, CGI::Apache and
CGI::Cookie.
The first two are just "does it compile" tests. The third is a good
test of CGI::Cookie. Lincoln, there's this note you'll want to look
at in cookie.t:
# I'm really not happy about the restults of this section. You pas
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 11:56:01AM +0200, Tels wrote:
> On 02-Sep-01 Michael G Schwern tried to scribble about:
> > Okay, part two of the t/op/misc.t cleanup. This one deletes
> > t/run/segfault.t (redundant) and moves t/op/misc.t to the more
> > descriptive t/run/kill_perl.t
> >
> > --- MANIFES
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 05:05:43PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I think the wholesale renaming of t/op/misc as t/run/kill_perl is
> really wrong.
>
> (I think you are reading too much into the leading comments, and other
> people have been reading too little into them.)
>
> t/op/misc has NO
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
oups, round 2. Stupid, I should have tested it better before:
Have fun,
Tels
- --
perl -MMath::String -e 'print \
Math::String->from_number("215960156869840440586892398248"),"\n"'
http://bloodgate.com/thief/ Thief - The Dark Project
http://bloo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
attached is a revised version of pod_cover.pl which you can use to test a
whole distribution using the new v0.06 API.
Pod::Coverage 0.06 is still falsely reporting the overload thingies as
naked - that should not happen per default since these subs do ne
I think the wholesale renaming of t/op/misc as t/run/kill_perl is
really wrong.
(I think you are reading too much into the leading comments, and other
people have been reading too little into them.)
t/op/misc has NOT consistently been the place for core-dumping tests;
it has some yes, but not al
01-09-02 02.18, skrev Michael G Schwern på [EMAIL PROTECTED] följande:
> Okay, part two of the t/op/misc.t cleanup. This one deletes
> t/run/segfault.t (redundant) and moves t/op/misc.t to the more
> descriptive t/run/kill_perl.t
Applied as #11828, thanks!
(And I fixes the MANIFEST at Tels sug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 02-Sep-01 Michael G Schwern tried to scribble about:
> Okay, part two of the t/op/misc.t cleanup. This one deletes
> t/run/segfault.t (redundant) and moves t/op/misc.t to the more
> descriptive t/run/kill_perl.t
>
> --- MANIFEST 2001/09/02 00:13:36
> @@ -739,3 +783,9 @@
> # keep this last - doesn't seem to work otherwise?
This requirement magically went away while I was away?
> eval "a.b.c.d.e.f;sub"
> EXPECT
> +
> + perlbug ID 20010831.001
> +($a, b) = (1, 2);
> +EXPECT
> +Can't modify constant item in list assignment at - line
13 matches
Mail list logo
