We've found a couple of things. First, we have a "reviewformat" program which
diffs the code vs. RCS, so you have a change-barred version of the code for
the review. Anything with a change bar has to be explained in the review.
Second, anything that hash to be explained during the code review nee
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> So I had this bright idea. Test::FAQ and Test::Tutorial are just sort
> of sitting here on my hard drive not doing much of anything. Why not
> put them up as a Wiki and then everyone else can sort of just play
> around with it and we'll see what h
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > -print "1..11\n";
>
> We kinda needed that. :)
>
ooops. :-*
--- Joe M.
> This statement makes my eyes bleed. You don't have to shove them
> together like that. And the "# Failed" should be on a seperate line.
Ah. Thought it should occur in the same line.
> Ok. I'll repatch with the sensible ok() and send this one onto p5p.
Oooh, me first patch. :) Thanks, and I r
Am I being goofy if I want to fix the stuff that I know is bad even if
it can't be done via an ok() function? I seem to recall that the
print "not " unless something;
print "ok xx\n";
occurs a lot and make VMS all urpy.
I'll look into cleaning that up after doing the ok() insetions. It's
p
I took the printf(), added an sprintf() and another conditional
operator, and got the following:
my $test = 1;
sub ok {
my($ok, $name) = @_;
printf "%sok %d - %s%s\n", $ok ? "" : "not ", $test, $name,
($ok ? "" : sprintf("\t# Failed test at line %d\n",
(caller)[2]));
$t
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>t/op/flip.t Yes (what is this?)
>
Flip-flop operator, I think.
I'll keep plugging, and thanks for the help.
--- Joe M.
Michael G Schwern wrote
>Hmmm. concat.t is wy too basic to use Test::More on it. delete.t
>is pushing it. die.t and die_exit.t cannot be tested with Test::More
>since it relies on that functionality.
>
Okay, not a problem. I can clean up the prints anyway:
print "not " unless some_c
I've switched over to using is() for anything that wasn't an '==' test'
on funky
numeric values; there are a lot of those in (e.g.) bop.t, and I didn't
want to
change the fundamental nature of the tests. I've also gotten my diff format
right this time. :)
So here are:
- avhv.t
- bop.t
- cha
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 12:27:40PM -0400, Joe McMahon wrote:
>
>>I didn't send the one that uses Test::More, which was really silly because
>>the one I sent doesn't work (left out one test)!
>>
>
>Ooooh, much better. Test::
Here's a patch for op/avhv.t ro remove the 'print "not "' in bleadperl.
You wanted us to send them to you, not to p5p, right?
--- Joe M.
*** avhv.t Wed Aug 29 10:59:00 2001
--- avhv.t.new Wed Aug 29 10:56:40 2001
***
*** 19,24
--- 19,38
print "1..29\n"
I didn't send the one that uses Test::More, which was really silly because
the one I sent doesn't work (left out one test)!
This patch switches avhv.t to use Test::More; verified under 'make test'
in ./bleadperl, and './perl -I../lib harness', and './perl -I../lib
harness -v' in bleadperl/t.
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
