On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Adrian Howard wrote:
Can anybody give me a definitive version of when TODO tests started
working in Test::Harness? From the Changes file I'm currently assuming
everything after Test::Harness 2.03 inclusive should be okay.
Personally, I would tend towards leaving the
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
+=head2 Other Handy Functions
+
+=over 4
+
+=item prompt
+
+my $value = prompt($message);
+my $value = prompt($message, $default);
+
+The Cprompt() function provides an easy way to request user input
+used to write a makefile. It
Run this little script:
use Test::More tests = 10;
use strict;
my $pid;
if ($pid = fork)
{
wait;
ok(1) for 1..10;
}
else
{
exit;
}
And note the annoying # No tests run! message that gets printed before
the first ok message.
I can't think of any really
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Tels wrote:
If you would prefer to handle the
ExtUtils::MakeMaker and ExtUtils::MM_* changes yourself let me know.
You can do it. I'll wait until the dust settles (I wrote tests for routines
that now get removed, so I am a bit conservative with starting another heap
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Have you tried the Test::Builder thing yet? I think you should be
able to solve your forking problem like so:
Working on it
use Test::More tests = 10; # or whatever.
Except this needs to printed just once in the parent _before_ any tests
On 29 Sep 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
If it's not a dumb question, why are you doing it that way? If you
were using PerlUnit, aka Test::Unit::TestCase, you could do something
like:
Why am I doing what? Forking and starting tests at weird offsets?
The forking is cause I need to load different
For my Alzabo tests, I do some weird stuff involving forking off processes
during tests and running the same (basically same) set of tests multiple
times, each time with different modules loaded. The parent process
calculates how many tests will be involved in each run and how many runs
will
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Uggg. No, there's no good way to handle this now unless there's some
way $Num_Tests can make itself shared between forks.
Well, I do keep track of it in my code and pass it around between forks.
What I need is a way to set it.
In the general
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:23:58PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
The patch below allows you to supply your own test name for the isa_ok
function (I find the default insufficiently descriptive). I'd like to do
the same for can_ok but I don't think
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:42:55PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
+sub eval_ok ($) {
+my ($code, $name) = @_;
+
+eval { $code-() };
+if ($@) {
+ ok( 0, $name - $@ );
+} else {
+ ok( 1, $name
The patch below allows you to supply your own test name for the isa_ok
function (I find the default insufficiently descriptive). I'd like to do
the same for can_ok but I don't think that could be done without breaking
backwards compatibility.
-dave
--- More.t~ Wed Sep 5 19:23:24 2001
+++
11 matches
Mail list logo
