This patch lets Test::More compare circular data structures.
Get the latest version (0.47) of Test::More, apply fixes.patch to fix some
issues, then apply circular.patch. Test with circular.t,
F
--
Do you need someone with lots of Unix sysadmin and/or lots of OO software
development
perl -MTest::More=no_plan -e 'is_deeply({}, {key => []})'
should fail but doesn't because $DNE is deeply equal to [] and _deep_check
doesn't notice the class difference.
Patch attached.
F
--
Do you need someone with lots of Unix sysadmin and/or lots of OO software
development experience? Go
True. I usually expose "deep" objects by methods rather than hash
access, so it's not really a problem for the majority of my code.
Adrian
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 03:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:51:07AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
Option three.
isa_ok
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:51:07AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Option three.
>
>isa_ok($obj, 'MyClass');
>is_deeply($obj, { foo => 42, bar => 23 });
This is, unfortunately, shallow. It won't compare objects inside $obj.
programming in general), I reckon in the
context of test suites it's a bug.
I am already not yet convinced. In particular, it makes this sort of
test
more difficult than it needs be:
is_deeply($obj, { foo => 42, bar => 23 });
Absolutely, but there is currently no way to do this
is_deeply(
I'd go for feature, not bug. For me is_deeply has always been for
testing structure. We have isa_ok for checking class identity.
Having one that tested for both might be useful, but I would not change
the behaviour of is_deeply.
Adrian
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 05:32 pm, Fergal Daly
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:03:50PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > > - let _deep_check take it's cue from the second argument. If the second
> > > argument is blessed then be strict about the classes, if it's unblessed
> > > then ignore the classes. This should happen at all levels in the
> > > stru
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:21:09PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > I am already not yet convinced. In particular, it makes this sort of test
> > more difficult than it needs be:
> >
> > is_deeply($obj, { foo => 42, bar => 23 });
>
> Absolutely, but
particular, it makes this sort of test
more difficult than it needs be:
is_deeply($obj, { foo => 42, bar => 23 });
ed or whatever.
use Test::More;
for(1..10)
{
eq_array( [[]], [{}] )
}
print join(", ", @Test::More::Data_Stack)."\n";
The solution is to make eq_array and eq_hash wrappers around the original
functions. This is needed for the circular structures patch anyway.
Actually, I
On Thursday 27 February 2003 22:03, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to add a third argument to _deep_check to switch
> on/off bless checking, rather than having to reimplement the whole thing?
Below is a very simple patch to do that. That makes cmp_object very easy
F
--
Do you need
On Thursday 27 February 2003 21:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:21:09PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
>
> Or even better, cmp_objects().
Yep, sounds better.
> > - let _deep_check take it's cue from the second argument. If the second
> > argument is blessed then be strict ab
ontext of test suites it's a bug.
>
> I am already not yet convinced. In particular, it makes this sort of test
> more difficult than it needs be:
>
> is_deeply($obj, { foo => 42, bar => 23 });
Absolutely, but there is currently no way to do this
is_deeply($obj, bl
There's a line missing from Test::More::_deep_check(). It results in funny
diagnostics after comparing scalar refs, so
perl -MTest::More=no_plan -e 'is_deeply([(\"a") x 5, "b"], [(\"a") x 5, "c"])'
gives
# Structures begin
On Thursday 27 February 2003 16:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > is_deeply() ignores the classes of blessed refs. So
> >
> > perl -MTest::More=no_plan -e 'is_deeply(bless([], "a"), bless([], "b"))'
> >
> > passes,
>
> Oh. Not sure if that's a bug or a feature. Discuss it on perl-qa.
I think that
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:32:21AM +1100, Ken Williams wrote:
> So why does CPAN.pm depend on Test::More anyway? It only uses
> it during its 'make test' phase, not during runtime operations.
> And when you can't install modules very easily because you don't
&g
Hi,
Twice recently, I've just been through the task of upgrading
CPAN.pm from 1.59_54 to 1.63 on a solaris system because
something about MD5 was broken enough that no modules could be
installed. It took a long time to do manually, because of the
dependency on Test::More, which depen
On Saturday, October 26, 2002, at 04:22 pm, Nicholas Clark wrote:
[snip]
However, I'd like to be able to cleanly print out my random number seed to
STDERR (or whatever Test::Builder's correct name for this is) if it
believes
that any tests have failed, and I can't see a clean way to do this.
Whe
r this is) if it believes
> > that any tests have failed, and I can't see a clean way to do this.
>
> In an END block, grab the T::B object and check the summary().
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
>
> use Test::More tests => 1;
>
> pass('foo');
n way to do this.
In an END block, grab the T::B object and check the summary().
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use Test::More tests => 1;
pass('foo');
END {
my $failed = grep!$_, Test::More->builder->summary;
diag $failed ? "Failed\n" : "Passed\n&quo
I'm intending to write a module to work with Test::More to provide repeatable
"random" tests (ie take advantage of the pseudo random nature of rand).
I discussed it with Schwern at YAPC::EU and he thinks it will work.
However, I'd like to be able to cleanly print out my r
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:12:14AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> use_ok ("Test::More");
> is ($Test::More::VERSION, 0.47, "Test::More version check");
>
> ain't quite the same either.
> Some of my tests indeed *require* a certain version of some:
On Sat 28 Sep 2002 03:25, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 05:57:41PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > 1. use_ok should have an entry in the manual for minimal version
> >
> > use_ok ("Test::More", 0.47);
>
&
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 05:57:41PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> 1. use_ok should have an entry in the manual for minimal version
>
> use_ok ("Test::More", 0.47);
This currently doesn't work quite right. Observe...
$ perl -MTest::More -wle 'plan tests
Op een mooie herfstdag (Tuesday 24 September 2002 17:57), schreef H.Merijn
Brand:
> 2. I'm testing conversions to and from Unicode
>
> --8<---
> use Test::More tests => 86;
>
> use strict;
>
> BEGIN {
> use_ok ("PROCURA::Diac", 4.12);
>
1. use_ok should have an entry in the manual for minimal version
use_ok ("Test::More", 0.47);
2. I'm testing conversions to and from Unicode
--8<---
use Test::More tests => 86;
use strict;
BEGIN {
use_ok ("PROCURA::Diac", 4.12);
SKIP: {
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:05:53PM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> >$ perl -Mblib -wle 'use AutoExample; print "Yes" if
> >AutoExample->can("foo")'
> >Using /home/schwern/tmp/AutoExample/blib
> >Yes
>
> Hmmm... I'm doing BEGIN { use_ok( 'Thread::Pool' ) }... Maybe there is a
> difference
At 02:38 PM 8/30/02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 04:01:11PM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> > Is there an easy way to check methods, whose loading is deferred with
> > AutoLoader, with the can_ok() check?
>Nope. You have to create stubs. The AutoLoader module shou
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 04:01:11PM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> Is there an easy way to check methods, whose loading is deferred with
> AutoLoader, with the can_ok() check?
Nope. You have to create stubs. The AutoLoader module should do this
automatically for you assuming you've gone th
Is there an easy way to check methods, whose loading is deferred with
AutoLoader, with the can_ok() check? Or would some magic need to be added
to AutoLoader.pm?
Currently, you get an error that the subroutines do not exist.
Liz
> The purpose of isa_ok() is two fold:
>
> Check that a scalar contains an object
> Check that object is of the right class
I've recently started using it for more than constructors. Here's a
patch to the docs to encourage this:
Thanks,
xoxo,
Andy
--- More.pm Sat Jul 6 22:57:13
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 06:57:27PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> My test was:
>
> use_ok( 'Child::Class' );
> isa_ok( 'Child::Class', 'Parent::Class' );
>
> I could just as easily check @Child::Class::ISA or use UNIVERSAL::isa().
Child::Class->isa('Parent::Class')
--
This sig file te
On Saturday 06 July 2002 18:41, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> The purpose of isa_ok() is two fold:
> Check that a scalar contains an object
> Check that object is of the right class
> and it only exists because it's a very common test and you have to do the
> above in several steps to get
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 05:37:14PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Here's a patch to the Test::Simple 0.45 distribution to make isa_ok() work with
> class names, not just objects. It tries to respect custom isa() methods, as
> well.
The purpose of isa_ok() is two fold:
Check that a scalar contain
a reference or a class";
+ }
}
else {
# We can't use UNIVERSAL::isa because we want to honor isa() overrides
diff -ur Test-Simple-0.45.old/t/More.t Test-Simple-0.45/t/More.t
--- Test-Simple-0.45.old/t/More.t Sat Apr 20 17:34:40 2002
+++ Test-Simpl
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:51:30AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Attached is a patch to make Test::More do the right thing (as I see it) in this
> case. Previously, it called can() on the class name, which obviously doesn't
> work here.
You're right.
> I suspect something
sub can {
my ($self, $sub) = @_;
return exists $self->{_subs}{$sub};
}
Attached is a patch to make Test::More do the right thing (as I see it) in this
case. Previously, it called can() on the class name, which obviously doesn't
work here.
I suspect
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I'd encourage you to write a Test::Builder based module that does more
> complete set & complex data testing. Either talk to Barrie about
> adding it to Test::Differences or start a new module. Test::Set,
> Test::Data::Deep, etc...
But but I've al
uot;&& 0" at the end to ensure that
> the method returns the correct truth (otherwise is_reversed will return
> true no matter what is called)
Sensible. Done. If anyone asks, it's your fault.
> Secondly, I was wondering about eq_set in Test::More.
>
> ok(e
reverse of '$_[0]' is '".reversed($_[0]).
"' not '$_[1]' as expected")
}
rather than having to do the horrible "&& 0" at the end to ensure that
the method returns the correct truth (otherwise is_reversed will return
e code I have
> elsewhere, it isn't generalized to handle all data structures.
>
> > Mind if I steal it? :)
>
> Not at all, but you'll need to steal Algortihm::Diff (and, for the
> moment, Text::Diff, but I want to remove that necessity).
In that case, since it plays ni
Mind if I steal it? :)
Not at all, but you'll need to steal Algortihm::Diff (and, for the
moment, Text::Diff, but I want to remove that necessity).
> > I would like to make Test::Differences autodetect Test::More and others
> > like it so it can extend them "seamlessly&quo
s, or arrays of
> arrays of strings (basically, all the result types DBI's fetchall_...()
> methods can return plus whole strings).
Oooh, pretty. Beats the hell out of is_deeply.
Mind if I steal it? :)
> I would like to make Test::Differences autodetect Test::More and oth
ould like to make Test::Differences autodetect Test::More and others
like it so it can extend them "seamlessly" like so:
use Test::More ;
use Test::Differences ;
plan tests => 10 ;
is "a", "a" ;
is_or_diff \@Got1, \@Expected1, "test 2" ;
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:19:21PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> > I'm planning on using diag().
> >
> > ok( $foo == $bar ) || diag 'blah blah';
> >
> > it has nice mnemonics with:
> >
> > open(FOO, "bar") || die 'blah blah';
> >
> > "ok or diag" "open or die"
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Little to
Hi,
Newbie with Test::More --- and loving it :-)
on 10/12/01 12:04 pm, Michael G Schwern at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Its been on the Test::More todo list to have a blessed way to do:
>
> print STDOUT "# here's some extra info\n";
>
> I'm planning on
Its been on the Test::More todo list to have a blessed way to do:
print STDOUT "# here's some extra info\n";
I'm planning on using diag().
ok( $foo == $bar ) || diag 'blah blah';
it has nice mnemonics with:
open(FOO, "bar") || die
or $dayjob and can offer this as a possible
workaround to get multiple WebChat subs.
#!perl -w
use strict;
use Test::More tests => 2;
use TestConfig;
use Inline 'WebChat' => < <
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 07:06:45PM -0400, Michael G Schwern said:
> > Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
> > makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff using both these
> > modules.
>
> I can solve this from my end by providing c
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:17:06AM -0400, Shane Landrum wrote:
| On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:30:58PM -0400, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
|wrote:
| > OK, I've been putting off figuring this out for ages, but here it is:
|
|
|
| Another way to accomplish the same thing, that I hacked
otected web gadget:
----
use strict;
use Test::More qw(no_plan);
use LWP::Simple;
my $WEB_SYSTEM = 'foo.bar.com';
my $USERNAME = 'foo';
my $PASSWORD = 'bar';
use LWP::UserAgent;
# We make our own specialization of LWP::UserAg
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 07:06:45PM -0400, Michael G Schwern said:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:57:48PM -0400, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert wrote:
> > Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
> > makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff usi
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:57:48PM -0400, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert wrote:
> Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
> makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff using both these
> modules.
I can solve this from my end by providing contro
Both Test::More and WWW::Chat export a routine called fail(). This
makes it rather hard to write tests for web stuff using both these
modules.
Since WWW::Chat's fail() is only used internally, could I possibly
request that it be changed to not export, and/or rename it _fail, or
wha
OK, I've been putting off figuring this out for ages, but here it is:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Inline 'WebChat';
use Test::More 'no_plan';
ok(google(), "Can get google");
__END__
__WebChat__
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 05:22:16PM +0100, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> I've just written a small logging module and I want ot do this
>
> isa_ok($lj, "BlackStar::LumberJack", "I'm a LumberJack and I'm ok");
>
> This feature is essential ;-)
Reimplementing the chop() function?
--
Michael G. Schw
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:40:15PM -0400, 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 fo
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, chromatic wrote:
> Combining the two gives us a test and a very contrived test failure output:
>
> isa_ok($foo, 'Alzabo::Foo', 'Return value from $bar->foreign_keys');
>
> not ok 1 - $foo->isa('bar')
> # Failed test (foo.plx at line 3)
> # Retu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Rolsky"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> A, ok. How about this:
>>
>> my $yarrow = Bar->new;
>> isa_ok($yarrow, "Bar", 'yarrow');
> isa_ok($foo, 'Alzabo::Foo', 'Return value from $bar->foreign_keys
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> A, ok. How about this:
>
> my $yarrow = Bar->new;
> isa_ok($yarrow, "Bar", 'yarrow');
>
>
> not ok 1 - yarrow->isa('bar')
> # Failed test (foo.plx at line 3)
> # yarrow isn't a 'Bar'
That's better, I guess. But I'm
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:40:53PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > What sort of names do you tend to throw in there?
>
> Just something more descriptive than what it generates by default.
> Something like "Check that object X isa Blah". The key being that I want
> to say _what_ object I'm checking
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Kirrily Robert wrote:
> But it does! It says something like:
>
> not ok 23
> # Failed test 1 (eval.t at line 69)
> # got: 'blah blah blah'
> # expected: ''
Oops, that's what I get for not actually trying it out.
I guess that's good enough, though I still l
In perl.qa, you wrote:
>>
>> eval { ...code... };
>> is( $@, '' );
>
>Yeah, except that doesn't print out $@ in case of failure. If I'm
>checking that no exception occurs I want to know what the exception is
>when it happens.
But it does! It says something like:
not ok 23
# Failed
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:42:55PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > +sub eval_ok (&$) {
> > +my ($code, $name) = @_;
> > +
> > +eval { $code->() };
> > +if ($@) {
> > + ok( 0, "$name - $@" );
> > +} else {
> > + ok( 1, $name );
> >
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:23:58PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > The patch below allows you to supply your own test name for the isa_ok
> > function (I find the default insufficiently descriptive). I'd like to do
> > the same for can_ok but I don't
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:42:55PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> +sub eval_ok (&$) {
> +my ($code, $name) = @_;
> +
> +eval { $code->() };
> +if ($@) {
> + ok( 0, "$name - $@" );
> +} else {
> + ok( 1, $name );
> +}
> +}
The unfortunate problem is this has adverse effect
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 that could be done without breaking
> backwards
patches is that I'm trying to use Test::More for
Alzabo and these are some changes that would make it more useful for me.
-dave
--- More.t.old Mon Sep 24 18:35:39 2001
+++ More.t Mon Sep 24 18:39:35 2001
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-use Test::More tests => 22;
+use Test::More tests => 25;
u
23:24 2001
+++ More.t Mon Sep 24 18:24:15 2001
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-use Test::More tests => 22;
+use Test::More tests => 23;
use_ok('Text::Soundex');
require_ok('Test::More');
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
can_ok pass fail eq_array eq_hash
eq_se
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:30:21PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > t/op/numconvert.t Yes (I don't understand the warning at the top)
>
> Which warning would that be?
Would you believe "# Repent for the end is near?"
I have no idea what I was talking about.
> I think it's more likely to
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
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.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:17:57PM -0400, Joe McMahon wrote:
> 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.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:25:23PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> If I'm right, this is the format test, ain't it? If so, be
> *extremely* careful with the last part (60 lines or so), cause it
> depends on the way the IO handles are dealt with (nested write's)
Hmmm... you're messing with STDOUT.
On Thu 30 Aug 2001 20:46, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, quick run-through of what in t/op it's safe to use Test::More
> with. 'Yes' means use Test::More. 'No' means use an 'ok' function.
> 'No way' means yo
Ok, quick run-through of what in t/op it's safe to use Test::More
with. 'Yes' means use Test::More. 'No' means use an 'ok' function.
'No way' means you can't even use an 'ok' function.
This is just a quick, cursory overview. Scream
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> With Test::More should I be able to do this:
>
> is (scalar , undef, "should read undef as we are at eof");
The new versions on CPAN handle this. I just have to get around to
patching it into the core. Stu
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> With Test::More should I be able to do this:
> is (scalar , undef, "should read undef as we are at eof");
This was fixed in a recent version
> sub is ($$;$) {
> my($this, $that, $name) = @_;
>
&g
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 01:24:00AM +0900, Tatsuhiko Miyagawa wrote:
> This will lead to the following error, caused by eval()ing
> standalone "use Test::More".
>
> Odd number of elements in hash assignment at
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Test/Simpl
When writing tests using Test::More, we should put some phrase
like this in Makefile.PL:
WriteMakefile(
'NAME'=> 'Foobar',
'VERSION_FROM' => 'Foobar.pm', # finds $VERSION
'PREREQ_PM' => {
'Test
Both Test::Simple and Test::More are in bleadperl and will be in 5.8.0.
For normal users of the module, this isn't really all that big a
thing, since you can just get it from CPAN anyway. What it does mean
is the core library tests can now be written using these testing
libraries instead o
PC, and I'm unclear about something.
use Test::More no_plan;
ok( nonblank("abc") eq "OK" , "Strings aren't blank" );
The above is generated using Pod::Tests and pod2test (yay schwern!).
When I run these tests, I never see the descriptions of the tests (e
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:51:10AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> Then try this
>
> use strict;
> use Test::More no_plan;
D'OH!
--
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:56:51PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 07:36:15PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > > use Test::More no_plan;
> >
> > no bare words, please ;-)
> >
> > use Test::More qw(no_plan);
>
> I had sta
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 07:36:15PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > use Test::More no_plan;
>
> no bare words, please ;-)
>
> use Test::More qw(no_plan);
I had started to add qw() to all my docs, but oddly enough nothing
seems to have a problem with that barew
On Wed 13 Jun 2001 18:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First, "use Test::More no_plan;" now works! What this means is you
> can write:
>
> use Test::More no_plan;
no bare words, please ;-)
use Test::More qw(no_plan);
> ok($foo == $bar,
Two big new things in the testing modules.
First, "use Test::More no_plan;" now works! What this means is you
can write:
use Test::More no_plan;
ok($foo == $bar,'foo is bar');
ok($right ne $wrong,'morality works');
That's
New version of Test::More en route to CPAN. As always, it can be
gotten from http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-More-0.04.tar.gz
0.04 Thu Jun 7 11:26:18 BST 2001
- minor bug in eq_set() with complex data structures
Thanks to Tatsuhiko Miyagawa for finding this.
0.03 Tue Jun 5
88 matches
Mail list logo
