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
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:24:32AM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Adrian Howard wrote:
>
> > lives_ok BLOCK TEST_NAME
> > Tests to see that BLOCK exits normally, and doesn't die.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of this is; your test will
> still fail if it
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > What would it do?
> > (I can show you lots of sloppy tests if you like. :)
>
> Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear from the example. sort of like eq_set meets
> is_deeply.
Well, I think he was just being a bit
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Adrian Howard wrote:
> lives_ok BLOCK TEST_NAME
> Tests to see that BLOCK exits normally, and doesn't die.
I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of this is; your test will
still fail if it dies even when not in a lives_ok block, right?
Not that I have any real ob
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:05:49PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> 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 int
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
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:02:32PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > > There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> > > Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, aka...
On Tue 09 Apr 2002 18:02, Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > > There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> > > Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, ak
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> > Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, aka...)
>
> What would it do?
>
> (I can show you lots of sloppy tests if yo
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:21PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
> There's a lot of other problems like that. So I was thinking of writing
> Test::Sloppy (aka Test::Fuzzy, aka...)
What would it do?
(I can show you lots of sloppy tests if you like. :)
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So...
In a previous thread I was talking about how eq_set() should be really
called eq_bag(). Now, not that I've got too much on my plate already (see
my fun todo) but I do have an itch to scratch...
I'm fed up applying too much logic in my test suites. This is bad
because:
a) I spend too
11 matches
Mail list logo
