On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:32:17AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:57:39AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > How about testing on 127.0.0.1?
> >
> > As insane as it sounds, it might not be there. There might be
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:57:39AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How about testing on 127.0.0.1?
>
> As insane as it sounds, it might not be there. There might be no IP
> system at all. Consider DOS.
I was thinking after testing for IP con
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:49:08 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nicholas Clark)
wrote:
> /perl -Ilib -MTest::More -e 'plan(3); ok(1)'
> Undefined subroutine &Test::More::plan called at -e line 1.
Should be
/perl -Ilib -MTest::More=tests,3 -e 'ok(1)'
IMO.
Cheers,
Philip
Could you explain a bit about what this test is doing?
It may help to put sample files to split against in t/lib somewhere
rather than smashing them all after the __END__ block.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:37:40AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> + # There may be a way to capture STDOUT without s
Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> Can't I use the module early, and then figure out how many tests I'm planning
> to run at run time? If "no", I'm going to have to do my figuring-out in a
> BEGIN block. This was with Test::More::VERSION '0.19'
You can look at what I did in t/op/ver.t as well, vis:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:49:08PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Fair enough. But:
>
> ./perl -Ilib -MTest::More -e 'plan(3); ok(1)'
> Undefined subroutine &Test::More::plan called at -e line 1.
>
> Can't I use the module early, and then figure out how many tests I'm planning
> to run at run ti
On Sat 22 Sep 2001 00:50, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, that's a big job to get right and we'll do it later. Right
> now, stick to the cleanups and adding coverage. It also wouldn't hurt
> to start going through old open perlbug entries.
A lead to find bugs that are al
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:31:29PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> > As insane as it sounds, it might not be there. There might be no IP
> > system at all. Consider DOS.
>
> But isn't there a test for localhost (getbyhostname or something), that
> would also run into the problem, e.g. is this solved by Co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 21-Sep-01 Michael G Schwern tried to scribble about:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:57:39AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> How about testing on 127.0.0.1?
>
> As insane as it sounds, it might not be there. There might be no IP
> system at all. Con
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:57:39AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about testing on 127.0.0.1?
As insane as it sounds, it might not be there. There might be no IP
system at all. Consider DOS.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality A
From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:37:41PM +0100, Paul Marquess wrote:
> > From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > > Michael G Schwern listed:
> > > [...]
> > > > warnings::register (almost no docs)
> >
> > Hmm, would a "see L and
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:35:04PM -0700, Zach Lipton wrote:
> > I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but why not put this in a
> > Wiki?
>
> That's a great idea! And by some shocking coincidence, we just happen
> to have a perl-qa W
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:35:04PM -0700, Zach Lipton wrote:
> I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but why not put this in a
> Wiki?
That's a great idea! And by some shocking coincidence, we just happen
to have a perl-qa Wiki for you to add this to. :)
http://www.pobox.com/~schwer
I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but why not put this in a
Wiki? It seems to be a _huge_ pain to mail this list out every few weeks
whenever something changes, why not post it up and allow people to mark it
up a little: say that they are working on a test so the effort isn't
duplic
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:37:41PM +0100, Paul Marquess wrote:
> From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > Michael G Schwern listed:
> > [...]
> > > warnings::register (almost no docs)
>
> Hmm, would a "see L and L." do?
I've always been a fan of putting the docs near the code
On 2001.09.19 17:37 Paul Marquess wrote:
> Nope, it does both. The test files that start with digits are intended to
> test the features of the warnings pragma itself along with it's interaction
> with $^W. All the other files test specific warnings.
>
> The tests for warnings::enabled and warnin
From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Michael G Schwern listed:
> [...]
> > warnings::register (almost no docs)
Hmm, would a "see L and L." do?
> There are no tests for warnings.pm either.
>
> Note that there are two distinct points here :
>
> 1. test the warnings issued by th
Michael G Schwern listed:
[...]
> warnings::register (almost no docs)
There are no tests for warnings.pm either.
Note that there are two distinct points here :
1. test the warnings issued by the perl interpreter; this is done by
lib/warnings.t, that calls the various files in t/lib/warnings/
Here's where we're at. I might be a little off on the Pod:: tests.
chromatic and Andrew Wilson took a good chunk out of it. CGI is now
pretty well covered. More of ExtUtils are tested, and rather
amazingly, Term::Complete!
For Term::ReadLine you may be able to steal/draw inspiration from the
19 matches
Mail list logo
