The good news is lib.t and MM_Unix just went into the core.
The even better news is Wolfgang Laun came riding in out of the East
and has begun fixing perlcc! He's repairing B::Assembler and
B::Disassembler and has written assembler.t
And not to break the trend, the Net::Ping CPAN distribution a
Small update. diag() has finally been added to Test::More, thanks to
chromatic. Also, I noticed that internal eval()s were interfering
with the outside's $@ and $!, so I protected against that. Why eval()
is fiddling with $! I don't know.
0.41 Mon Dec 17 22:45:20 EST 2001
* chromatic add
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 05:39:45PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > For instance, I know of a lot of CPAN modules without tests at all, and I
> > talked to a few authors, and even if they decide to add tests (after my
> > 'convincing' emails), it takes time, or never gets done, or the tests are
Tels posted some of his Test::More experiences off-list. Some of them
are rather good so I'll post my reply on-list.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 10:42:55PM +0100, Tels wrote:
> * Use Test::Simple/More for new testfiles. It can help you. If Test::More
> scares you, use Test::Simple or only a subset
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:20:35PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:12:05 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > Its been on the TODO list to toss a diag() into Test::More.
> >
> > ok( ... ) || diag(...);
> >
> > for some reason I keep putting it off.
> >
> > Test::Simple wo
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 03:50:12PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0500, Kirrily Robert wrote:
>
> Are we doing the time warp again, or are the Huskies just tired of
> pulling the packets across the border?
>
>
> > How about:
> >
> > compare($foo, "<=", $b
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:20:35PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Something like this?
Something uncannily like this, only without the literal tabs.
> diffing against a directory tree is odd... there must be a better
> way.
I usually just check each individual file into RCS (vc-register-buffer
fo
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 02:07:56PM -0500, Kirrily Robert wrote:
> Actually, Test::Mail doesn't work like that. It's more or less a
> wrapper around Test::More that handles incoming email. Doesn't
> implement any of its own ok()-like routines at all, just makes it easy
> to use Test::More's routi
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:52:12PM -0500, Kirrily Robert wrote:
Are we doing the time warp again, or are the Huskies just tired of
pulling the packets across the border?
> How about:
>
> compare($foo, "<=", $bar)
cmp_ok(). Close.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:12:05 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 07:52:03AM -0500, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
>> I noticed that Test::Builder offers the ability to emit messages with s/^/#
>> /mg, which is very nice. Can/should this capability be exposed via
>> Test::Simple, T
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:04:17 -0700, Tels wrote:
> First, ok() is no no longer ok(), but is now is(), because ok() is no longer
> ok to use with ok($this,$that); but is() is ok with $that. And then there is
> isnt(), isn't it? Not to speak of the use of can_ok(), which you can use, ok?
> isnt() $t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 11-Dec-01 Kirrily Robert tried to scribble about:
> In perl.qa, you wrote:
>>I think I have a solution to the rigidity of is(). ie. something with
>>the diagnostic output of is(), but the flexibility of ok().
>
>>It all makes sense, so what I really n
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>I think I have a solution to the rigidity of is(). ie. something with
>the diagnostic output of is(), but the flexibility of ok().
>It all makes sense, so what I really need is a better name.
How about:
compare($foo, "<=", $bar)
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL P
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
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> I noticed that Test::Builder offers the ability to emit messages with
> s/^/# /mg, which is very nice. Can/should this capability be exposed
> via Test::Simple, Test::More, etc?
Can't you just "use Test::Builder" somewhere in your test script like
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:10:30PM +0900, Tatsuhiko Miyagawa wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 09:10:33 -0500
> Barrie Slaymaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now I see what you're after with the -M approach, thanks for the
> > example.
>
> Cool.
>
> > I can understand that :) since CPAN is/seems
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 07:52:03AM -0500, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> I noticed that Test::Builder offers the ability to emit messages with
> s/^/# /mg, which is very nice. Can/should this capability be exposed
> via Test::Simple, Test::More, etc?
Its been on the TODO list to toss a diag() into Te
I noticed that Test::Builder offers the ability to emit messages with
s/^/# /mg, which is very nice. Can/should this capability be exposed
via Test::Simple, Test::More, etc?
Sometimes it's nice to explain what to do about a test failure that may
be an intermittent failure, or to warn that they s
18 matches
Mail list logo
