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
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
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, 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, 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 );
> >
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 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
At 11:59 AM 9/24/2001 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 11:23 PM 9/23/2001 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>Basically we're pre-loading a hash when you use "keys" or "values" on
>>%ENV, and if I understand this right, hash elements are not
>>full-blown scalars and thus do not have tainting bits. Getti
At 5:04 PM -0700 9/24/01, Brad Hughes wrote:
>"Craig A. Berry" wrote:
>[...]
> > $ perl -"Twle" "my $foo = (values %ENV)[-1]; open(FILE, qq{>$foo})"
>> Name "main::FILE" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
>> Insecure dependency in open while running with -T switch at -e line 1.
>> %SYST
"Craig A. Berry" wrote:
[...]
> $ perl -"Twle" "my $foo = (values %ENV)[-1]; open(FILE, qq{>$foo})"
> Name "main::FILE" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
> Insecure dependency in open while running with -T switch at -e line 1.
> %SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort
>
> but with 5.6.1 there is no ta
At 11:23 PM 9/23/2001 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>Basically we're pre-loading a hash when you use "keys" or "values" on
>%ENV, and if I understand this right, hash elements are not
>full-blown scalars and thus do not have tainting bits. Getting an
>individual element from %ENV, on the other han
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Alter h2xs and ExtUtils::ModuleMaker to make the stub test be t/Foo.t
> instead of test.pl.
>
I believe h2xs does this already in bleadperl.
--
Tim Jenness
JAC software
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj
I've raised this problem with cpan-testers before, to exactly zero
response, but if we're going to start blasting them with lots and lots
of automated messages, it's probably time to again:
cpan-testers does not currently list a PASS/FAIL against a given version
of perl on search.cpan.org - it o
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
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
+++
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
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, $name );
> +}
> +}
The unfortunate problem is this has adverse effect
Ok, forget the last patch. This one incorporates that plus more.
This one also adds an eval_ok function. The idea here is that sometimes
you simply want to try something to see if it works or not. If it fails
it will append the error ($@) after the name of the test.
The reason for these patch
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nicholas Clark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope this patch works. The one without MANIFEST did.
Here's a patch to the patch that ties a filehandle and removes the spawning. I
had to tweak one little regex and add a chomp to get things to work.
p5p's trimme
20 matches
Mail list logo
